Thinking Outside the Bill: a Utility Manager's Guide to Assisting Low

Thinking Outside the Bill: A Utility Manager’s Guide to Assisting Low-Income Water Customers

A study sponsored by the AWWA Water Utility Council

Ideal crop marks

Second Edition Blank Page Thinking Outside the Bill:

A Utility Manager’s Guide to Assisting Low-Income Water Customers

A study sponsored by the AWWA Water Utility Council

Second Edition Thinking Outside the Bill: A Utility Manager’s Guide to Assisting Low-Income Water Customers

Copyright © 2014 American Water Works Association. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information or retrieval system, except in the form of brief excerpts or quotations for review purposes, without the written permission of the publisher. ISBN 978-1-62576-021-0

AWWA Headquarters AWWA Washington Office 6666 West Quincy Avenue 1300 Eye Street NW Denver, CO 80235-3098 Suite 01W Washington, DC 20005-3314 303.794.7711 202.628.8303 www.awwa.org

This project was funded by the Water Industry Technical Action Fund (WITAF). WITAF is managed by the AWWA Water Utility Council to support projects, studies, analyses, reports and presentations in support of AWWA’s legislative and regulatory agenda. WITAF is funded by a portion of every organizational member’s dues. Contents iv Acknowledgments

1 Introduction

2 Key Facts About Water Customers in the United States Information about the ability of low-income customers to afford water service.

3 Learning About Your Community Some of the tools you need to determine if there is a serious affordability problem in the community you serve.

7 Types of Water Affordability Programs The types of programs that water utilities are using to help their low-income customers better afford water service, plus some simple tools utilities can implement in the short term.

10 Thinking Outside the Bill Steps that you can take right now—even if your utility does not already have a low-income assistance program—to enhance the ability of low-income customers to afford water service.

13 Conclusion

14 References and Bibliography

15 Appendix—US Demographic Profiles

This report was funded by the Water Industry Technical Action Fund and overseen by the Water Utility Council. This edition was updated and revised by the following people:

Adam T. Carpenter, AWWA, Washington, D.C. Tom Curtis, AWWA, Washington, D.C. Gay Porter DeNileon, AWWA, Denver, Colo. Scott Rubin, Public Utility Consulting, Bloomsburg, Pa.

The following people were on the Project Team for first edition:

Jan Beecher, Beecher Policy Research, Haslett, Mich. John Cromwell, Stratus Consulting, Inc., Washington, D.C. Cindy Datig, Dollar Energy Fund, Pittsburgh, Pa. Marca Hagenstad, Stratus Consulting, Inc., Boulder, Colo. Jeff Lazo, Stratus Consulting, Inc., Boulder, Colo. Bob Raucher, Stratus Consulting, Inc., Boulder, Colo. Scott Rubin, Public Utility Consulting, Bloomsburg, Pa.

The following people were on the Project Advisory Committee for the first edition:

Julius Ciaccia, Cleveland Division of Water, Cleveland, Ohio Dennis Diemer, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland, Calif. Joe Gehin, Wausau Water Works, Wausau, Wis. Mike Hooker, Onondaga County Water Authority, Syracuse, N.Y. Christine Hoover, Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate, Harrisburg, Pa. Howard Neukrug, Philadelphia Water Dept., Philadelphia, Pa.

Clean safe drinking water and reliable sanitary Because water and sanitary services are lifeline wastewater disposal services cost money to provide. issues, water and wastewater utilities have a public Although most people understand that concept, the health obligation to find a way to provide services to fact is not everyone can afford these services. low-income customers while still maintaining sustainable finances. Many water utilities have More than 24 percent of all US households had an policies that allow minimal quantities or an amount annual income of less than $25,000 in 2012. Meanwhile, for essential needs to customers who cannot fully the average consumer’s monthly water bill increased afford water service. Other utilities have programs 6.3 percent each year between 2008 and 2010. While that take a proactive approach through conservation, water rates in much of the US have historically been rate discounts, and alternative rate structures or maintained below full cost, the trend is toward payment plans to assist customers who have trouble increases above the rate of inflation to meet the full paying their bills. cost of service, according to the Water Research Foundation (WRF and USEPA 2010). For most customers and utilities alike, this situation Nationally about 15% of residential is not sustainable. Low-income consumers may find “water customers are low-income themselves choosing between paying their water bills or buying food or paying rent. Utilities may be households … are constantly at risk caught with increased utility costs for collections and of payment problems, ... the best bad debt while juggling a budget that already must accommodate the increased demands of infrastructure customer assistance programs are replacement and regulatory mandates. ones that offer a complete approach American Water Works Association (AWWA) to the problem. and the AWWA Water Utility Council (WUC) ” continue to be concerned about this topic. In 2013, in cooperation with U.S. Conference of Mayors These programs are explored in depth in various and the Water Environment Federation, AWWA publications, particularly the 2010 WRF and the published Affordability Assessment Tool for Federal USEPA report Best Practices in Customer Payment Water Mandates, which discusses how the US Assistance Programs, which states, “Nationally about Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) qualifies 15% of residential water customers are low-income a community for relief from expensive mandates. households … are constantly at risk of payment “When communities face expensive water mandates, problems,” and advises that “the best customer and associated deadlines, the impact of the required assistance programs are ones that offer a complete expenditures can be extremely difficult for all who approach to the problem.” pay water bills, but particularly for those with lower This second edition of Thinking Outside the Bill incomes,” the report states. updates vital demographic and programmatic information as well as references and resources. Like the first edition, which was released in November 2004, this edition provides an overview of proven tools that utilities can use to identify and assist low-income customers. It is intended as a quick reference to introduce utilities to alternative approaches to the issue of affordability and is meant to supplement, not supplant, the more thorough works by AWWA and WRF. This publication is a handy resource for utilities that do not have an established low-income assistance program and need to educate board members and others in the community about the possibilities.

© 2014 American Water Works Association 1 Several administrative, low-cost, effective actions Using this guide, a utility may choose to adopt or to assist low-income customers are available improve its own assistance program or develop an to utilities. These include providing outreach effective partnership with energy utilities, local or assistance to community programs for the organizations, or government agencies. The guide is disadvantaged, particularly those designed to based on US law and practices, but utilities in maximize the use of existing assistance programs, Canada and Mexico, as well as in other nations, may and reviewing billing procedures and existing find ideas to help their own lower-income customers. conservation programs to determine if they could be revised to better address the concerns of low-income AWWA and its Water Utility Council hope that you customers. In any approach to meeting community find this publication useful. We are grateful for the needs, it is important for a utility manager to “think support of AWWA’s organizational members whose outside the bill.” contributions to the Water Industry Technical Action Fund made this report possible.

Key Facts About Water Customers in the United States The federal poverty level in 2014 was $19,790 2000 and 2012. In contrast, consumer prices in for a family of three and $23,850 for a family general increased by only 33% during that same of four. (US Dept. of Health and Human Services) time period. (Craley and Noyes 2013) At least 28 million US households have Most water utilities are unable to collect difficulty consistently paying for their between 0.5% and 1.5% of billed revenues. necessities because their incomes are so low. While not all of these uncollectible accounts This is equivalent to the number of households are low-income residential accounts, this does with incomes less than $25,000 per year. By provide a general indication of the magnitude comparison, there were approximately 115 million of nonpayment problems for many water households in the United States in 2012. utilities. (Rubin et al. 2004) (US Bureau of Labor Statistics) The median affordability percentage for water In 2011, the typical household paid about $500 and wastewater customers with 1,000 cf (7,480 per year for water and wastewater services. gallons) of usage is 0.71% and 0.90%, This compares to typical telephone and energy respectively. This is well below USEPA’s bills of approximately $1,200 and $2,000 per year, affordability guidelines of 2.5% for water respectively. (US Bureau of Labor Statistics) service and 2% for wastewater service, which relies heavily on median household income Lower-income households tend to spend less and underestimates the effect of rising water than the average household for all utility bills on low-income, fixed-income, and services. In 2011, a household with incomes renter-occupied households (AWWA 2013 and between $10,000 and $27,000 per year spent AWWA et al. 2013). There has been considerable about 20% less than the average household for debate in recent years as to whether median all utility services, including water and household income is an appropriate statistic to wastewater. (US Bureau of Labor Statistics) measure affordability, and if not, what should The average cost of water and wastewater be used in its place. Utilities, therefore, will services has increased faster than the rate of need to explore the unique conditions of their inflation for at least two decades. Indeed, one communities to help assess how this metric may study found that median household water and or may not apply in their areas. wastewater costs increased about 100% between

2 © 2014 American Water Works Association Learning About Your Community A first step in assessing a utility’s need for a low-income program is to gather information about the community and begin a dialogue with community organizations and agencies that work with low-income people. Through this information-gathering process, a utility manager can develop a deeper understanding of the community’s needs and identify ways to help address some of these needs. To determine the extent of the need for low-income assistance in your community you’ll want to answer these questions: ➤ What is the extent of poverty in my community? ➤ Are my customers having trouble paying their water bills? ➤ How do my utility and community compare with others in terms of the number of low-income households? The data sources described here provide an excellent starting point for accurately answering these questions and learning more about your community’s needs.

US Census Data The US Census Bureau collects detailed economic ➤ DP-3 is the economic profile, with and demographic data about each community in information about income levels, unemployment, the United States. Each year, the Census Bureau and poverty in a given community. conducts the American Community Survey (ACS) to ➤ DP-4 is the housing profile, which collect information about income, housing, and other contains information on age, size, value, characteristics from a scientific sample of the American cost, and occupancy of housing units population. The result is detailed data about hundreds in a specific area. of population and housing parameters. Frequently requested information is available in Demographic Profiles (DPs) for each community. The DP is divided into four parts: ➤ DP-1 includes basic information about number of people and households, including gender, age, and race. ➤ DP-2 is the social profile, containing information on education, marital status, disability, and language.

© 2014 American Water Works Association 3 US Census Data (continued) To create a community-specific DP, go to the Census 3. For DP-2, select Topics  People  Education Bureau’s website, factfinder2.census.gov,  Educational Attainment. Close that and take these steps: window and follow steps 2. a. and 2. b., but select DP02, “Select Social Characteristics 1. Select Advanced Search. in the United States,” in step b. 2. For DP-1, select Topics  People  Basic 4. For DP-3, select Topics  People  Income Count/Estimate  Household & Family. & Earnings  Income/Earnings (Households). Close that window. Follow the above steps but choose DP03, a. Select “Geographies” and choose the “Selected Economic Characteristics.” desired cities, towns, counties, or other 5. For DP-4, select Topics  Housing  Physical relevant geographic data points. (Note Characteristics  Bedrooms. Then follow the there are four tabs with different ways to same steps, selecting DP04, “Selected Housing seek out specific information.) Close that Characteristics.” window. Notes: Once a geographic area is chosen, you don’t have to b. Select DP-1, “Profile of General Population,” keep adding it; just delete the options you don’t want before for the relevant time period. Be sure to adding new data points. The menu at the top of the results select the title and not just check the box page has options for printing and downloading the data for a full profile to be revealed. from the selected tables.

The appendix reproduces each DP for the United States. The appendix not only shows what each profile contains, it also provides an important basis for comparing your community in terms of poverty rate, income level, and other characteristics to the country as a whole. Although the profiles contain a wealth of important information, you may want to first learn about some of your community’s key economic and housing characteristics from DP-3 and DP-4, including those characteristics shown in Table 1. The table includes US statistics from the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS); fill in information from your utility in the blank column.

Table 1 Key economic and housing characteristics from 2012 American Community Survey

United States Your Community Percent of people in civilian workforce 9.4 who are unemployed Percent of households with incomes 24.1 less than $25,000 per year Median household income $51,371 Percent of individuals below poverty level 15.9 Percent of households lacking complete 0.4 plumbing facilities Percent of households with no 2.6 telephone service

Depending on the community, data from other profiles, such as poverty statistics for the elderly or households with children, may be particularly important. Additional measures of economic need include: 1. Percentage of residents receiving public 3. Number/percentage of households that are assistance income and/or food stamps delinquent in paying their water bills 2. Average annual unemployment rates 4. Number/percentage of households enrolled in utility low-income assistance programs (AWWA et al. 2013)

ACS survey data from multiple years can also be used to identify local trends.

4 © 2014 American Water Works Association Data From Your Own Utility Your utility’s accounting system, billing system, There is no national database for this type of and customer service center are likely to have water utility data; however, industry surveys and information that you can use to understand your published sources provide a general range for customers and determine whether they are having uncollectible accounts. For example, WRF estimates problems paying their water bills. To obtain “that, over time, as much as 15% of the customer base statistical data, review your utility’s level of nationally” may be in arrears on their utility bills uncollectible accounts, also termed “doubtful and undergo the collection process (WRF and USEPA accounts” by some utilities. Although not all 2010). A 2004 survey of AWWA utility members uncollectible accounts are low-income customers, the (Rubin et al. 2004) confirmed that most utilities number of such accounts for residential customers had uncollectible accounts in the range of is an important indicator of the extent to which your 1% of revenues or less (see Table 2). Of the 278 utilities customers are having problems paying their bills. that responded to the survey, 176 (63%) stated that between 0.1% and 1.0% of their residential revenues Cautionary note: Low-income customers in many were not collected. It is likely, however, that the communities, particularly those where residential downturn in the economy between 2008 and 2013 water service can be disconnected for nonpayment, caused the level of uncollectible accounts to increase are likely to pay their water bill and rent (or mortgage) for many utilities. Data collected in 1996 from 554 before any other bill. This means that a low number of water utilities (AWWA, WATER:\STATS database, uncollectible accounts does not necessarily mean that 1996) showed that on average, slightly more than water is affordable throughout the community. A high 1% of revenues were not collected from customers, number of uncollectible bills (generally more than regardless of utility size. 2% of revenues), however, is usually a sign that there is a serious problem.

Table 2 AWWA water utility members’ average percent of uncollected residential revenues

Percent of residential revenues uncollected No. of Respondents (%) None 26 (9%) 0.1 to 1.0 176 (63%) 1.1 to 2.0 43 (15%) 2.1 to 3.0 17 (6%) More than 3.0 16 (6%) Source: AWWA WITAF, March 2004

In addition to examining uncollectible or unpaid problems, can help shape a program to assist accounts, review your utility data on late payments, low-income customers. including the number of delinquent accounts Consider the current data as well as how the data committed to payment plans and the number of have changed over the past three to five years, overdue accounts that are repeatedly late in making especially if your utility’s rates have increased during payments. In many utilities, the business office that time period. A time-series analysis could periodically generates a report of aged accounts provide early warning of an impending problem. receivable. Aged receivables, particularly from For example, in the 2004 AWWA survey discussed residential accounts, can be a key indicator of a earlier, 22% of respondents believed that potential affordability problem. “nonpayment of water bills is a big problem for In addition to financial data, obtain information from our utility,” and 30% of respondents believed that your customer service department or customer call nonpayment “is a growing problem for our utility.” center. Anecdotal information from customer service That is, although affordability concerns have not representatives, such as concerns customers express reached the crisis point for many utilities, nearly one regarding payments, as well as on the number third of water utilities recognize the problem is and types of customers who are having payment growing and could become serious in the future.

© 2014 American Water Works Association 5 Community Contacts Most communities have a variety of community resources available that routinely work with low-income households. For example, rural communities may not have local branches of national organizations such as the Salvation Army, but often a combination of local religious or nonprofit organizations and county or regional programs serve the community. In large urban areas, dozens of organizations are likely to provide some type of community assistance. In these communities, a utility may need to find an umbrella organization or some other group that can help the utility work more for identifying such organizations in your utility’s efficiently with the numerous organizations spread service area, even if your utility is very small or throughout the community. serves a rural community. ➤ Local or state government offices with depart- Rather than “reinventing the wheel,” ments such as human services, public welfare, a utility can maximize the impact housing, community development, or aging of its resources, and minimize ➤ Veteran’s Administration, Head Start programs, and other governmental or quasi-governmental its administrative and outreach costs, organizations that target specific types by working with these existing of low-income individuals community organizations. ➤ Legal Services office that represents low- income people in noncriminal matters These resources can provide a wealth of useful ➤ United Way, Salvation Army, Habitat for information, and ideas on how your utility can Humanity, or similar organizations that assist help serve the community’s needs. Rather than low-income people, primarily through local “reinventing the wheel,” a utility can maximize offices the impact of its resources, and minimize its ➤ administrative and outreach costs, by working with Homeless shelters, soup kitchens, food these existing community organizations. pantries, neighborhood centers, and similar local organizations that work directly with In addition, many energy utilities run assistance low-income people programs for their low-income customers, nationally ➤ known as LIHEAP (Low-Income Home Energy Programs and centers for seniors or persons Assistance Programs). Water utility managers may with disabilities want to approach their counterparts at energy utilities ➤ Councils of churches and other religious in their area to gain further insight into low-income organizations households and existing aid programs in the community. It may be helpful to approach these local organizations The specific organizations that work with low- as a potential partner or resource for their clients, income people in each community will vary. instead of merely an entity seeking information. If However, the following list is a useful starting point your utility and another organization agree to partner, the assistance your utility provides will not be limited to utility programs alone. For example, a utility can make an important and very cost-effective contribu- tion by including bill stuffers that support an existing organization’s work in utility mailings, by having field personnel identify homes where the occupants may need assistance, or by making a portion of the utility’s call center available during certain hours for an organization’s fund-raising or outreach efforts. This is an opportunity to be creative.

Water utilities assist their low-income customers or otherwise enhance customers’ ability to pay their bills on time in a variety of ways. This section briefly outlines several proven water affordability programs, based on information from published and unpublished sources, including member surveys conducted by the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies in 2003 and AWWA in 2004. Remember, each utility has different needs and faces different constraints, including legal provisions that might affect a utility’s ability to offer certain types of programs. A program that is effective and appropriate in one community may not be in another.

Bill Discounts Bill based on income. A percentage-of-income-pay- Lifeline rates. Some utilities offer “lifeline” rates ment plan (PIPP) sets the utility bill at a percentage that establish a low rate for a relatively small amount of the customer’s income, as long as consumption of water (e.g., the first 2,000 gallons per month). Life- remains below a given level. These programs go by line rates typically apply to all customers, with the names such as PIPP, Customer Assistance Program expectation that low-income customers will have a (CAP), or other variants, and are often established high percentage of their consumption covered by state law. For example, in Illinois, qualified by the lifeline rate. Like conservation or inclining low-income residents pay 6 percent of their monthly block-rates, after consumption of the first block (the income toward their energy bill each month. Current 2,000 gallons), rates rise, sometimes dramatically, for information on energy assistance programs in your each subsequent block consumed, so that the utility state can be obtained from the LIHEAP Clearing- can recover the full cost of service from the rest of its house (http://liheap.ncat.org/) or your state public customer base. service commission. No records of any water utilities adopting a PIPP were available. Because of legal or financial Because of legal or financial constraints, some utilities offer discounts only to certain types of constraints, some utilities offer low-income customers. For example, state law may discounts only to certain types permit a water utility to offer a different rate only to senior citizens or disabled veterans. of low-income customers. Leak Repairs and Other Discount based on income threshold. A rate Conservation Measures discount can also be based on the customer’s income. Conservation and leak-repair programs targeted to For example, some utilities have discount programs low-income customers, either as a separate program for customers whose income is lower than a certain or in conjunction with a rate-discount program, are threshold, enabling the customer to pay a lower rate designed to help lower the bills of low-income for service. In some instances, the discount is applied customers by reducing water consumption, resulting to the customer (or meter) charge only. Other utilities in lower water bills. For example, a utility may discount the entire bill. provide minor leak repairs, conservation devices Variable discount based on income. A somewhat (such as low-flow showerheads), and other different approach to providing discounts to conservation assistance to low-income customers. low-income customers would be to offer a system Some utilities couple conservation assistance with of tiered discounts, rather than applying a fixed rate discounts, while others provide conservation discount to the bill for customers who meet an assistance but no change in rates. income threshold.

© 2014 American Water Works Association 7 Community and Local customers with a referral to a local government agency or community organization that has crisis Government Assistance funding available. Programs Simple Tools: Monthly Based on industry surveys, more than 60% of water utilities partner with community organizations or Billing, Budget Billing, local government agencies, such as those listed and Conservation earlier, to help low-income water customers. Rather than developing and administering separate Implementing a low-income assistance program programs, utilities throughout the United States are takes a considerable amount of time and study. working with existing agencies and organizations And if the program involves changes in the rates to develop programs to assist water customers. paid by customers, important legal and policy questions (such as the fairness of the program In many instances, the utility pays the cost of the to nonparticipating customers) must be addressed program and the partner organization or agency before implementation. is responsible for verifying applicants’ eligibility and for administering the program. In other However, a utility can easily make some changes communities, the utility provides other types of to its internal procedures and existing programs assistance, such as soliciting donations and holding that could have a significant impact on low-income fundraising events without providing direct customers. Adjusting how and when customers are funding to the local organization. billed can be a short-term, easy-to-implement action that could help some low-income customers pay their water bills on time. These types of changes usually Communities may have funds available can be adopted in a relatively short period of time and with few, if any, legal or policy impediments. to help low-income residents meet Monthly billing. It can be very difficult for low- or an imminent crisis in utility service. fixed-income customers to ensure they have sufficient funds set aside to pay water bills that are issued bimonthly or quarterly. These customers often Arrearage Forgiveness find it easier to budget for and pay bills that arrive at the same time each month. Water utilities may incorporate arrearage (past due amount) forgiveness into their low-income Although converting to monthly billing can increase assistance programs. Arrearage forgiveness provides the administrative costs, Saunders and colleagues an additional incentive to customers to participate (1998) suggest that these costs could be reduced by in the assistance program and to pay their bills on sending bills at the normal frequency (bimonthly time. Specifically, if a customer meets the program’s or quarterly) but with payment stubs that can be requirements, whether for usage reduction, timely returned monthly. This can be done by sending the payment, or other criteria, the utility will forgive quarterly bill with three payment stubs, allowing some of the arrearage that the customer has accumulated. For example, each time a participating customer pays his or her bill on time, the utility may reduce the customer’s arrearage by $10. Crisis Funding Communities may have funds available to help low-income residents meet an imminent crisis in utility service. For example, if a customer is facing disconnection for nonpayment or must make major plumbing repairs, the customer is provided funding to address the crisis. Some utilities include crisis funding as part of their low-income assistance programs. Other utilities provide their

8 © 2014 American Water Works Association the customer to pay one third of the quarterly bill each month. In essence, the water bill becomes a rou- tine part of the customer’s monthly budget, rather than a large “bump” every two or three months. Saunders et al. also suggest that use of monthly billing for low- and fixed-income customers may reduce the utility’s collection costs, perhaps offsetting some of the increased billing costs. Some utilities already offer low-income customers the option to receive bills on a monthly basis (the offer may be extended to all customers who cannot afford the upfront customers), even if there is no change in the investment to qualify for the rebate. meter-reading frequency. Another option, When a utility considers its low-income customers, particularly for fixed-income customers, is it may find that a simple redesign of its conservation to implement “pick-a-date” billings that allow program, often at very low cost, might make the customers to choose to receive the bill at a time program much more accessible to those customers. of the month when they know they will have For example, if the customer’s initial investment can adequate cash flow to pay the bills. be reduced or eliminated, the program becomes Budget billing. Utilities with strong, seasonal feasible for many more low-income households. consumption patterns (for example, areas with very high summer consumption) can use budget billing to keep bills more affordable for low-income customers. Budget billing averages the anticipated Utilities with strong, seasonal annual consumption over a 12-month period and consumption patterns (for example, allows the customer to pay one twelfth of the total each month. This smooths out the billing amounts areas with very high summer and makes it easier for a low- or fixed-income consumption) can use budget billing customer to budget for water bills. However, if a utility has seasonal rates to encourage conservation to keep bills more affordable for during high-demand months, budget billing may be low-income customers. contrary to the conservation goals of the seasonal rate design. The utility must be careful in balancing these competing goals. As noted previously, conservation programs that Conservation program review. If your utility has target low-income customers, such as leak repair an existing conservation program, review the programs, can be highly cost-effective for both the program to determine if it is reaching low-income utility and the customer. This type of program not customers. Beecher and colleagues (2001) caution only eliminates a source of wasted water but it also that the design of a conservation program could have reduces bills for customers who are most likely to unintended consequences on low-income customers. have difficulty paying, thereby reducing the utility’s For example, a program that includes rebates for collection costs and working capital requirements. installing efficient plumbing fixtures or appliances might effectively exclude many low-income

Once you have gathered information about your community, met with local organizations and officials, and become familiar with various low-income assistance programs, it is time to “think outside the bill” about other tools. This section briefly outlines tools your utility can use in the short term and with a relatively small investment.

to have some customers direct their grants to the Help Conduct Outreach water utility. To receive LIHEAP funds, your for Existing Programs utility must register with your state LIHEAP office. A list of state offices and other information about With very little time or resource investment your the program is on the LIHEAP Clearinghouse’s utility can help maximize the benefits low-income website: http://liheap.ncat.org. consumers receive from existing government assistance programs. Three assistance programs Second, even if your utility cannot receive LIHEAP are highlighted here. However, community experts funds directly, you can promote the program in may identify other programs that could help your your community. This can be done by sending a bill customers afford their water bills. stuffer, instructing your customer service personnel to inform payment-troubled customers about LIHEAP, and assisting with local outreach efforts. Presently, As of 2013, LIHEAP provided LIHEAP reaches only about 20% of households that are eligible for assistance. By working with local approximately $3.2 billion per year organizations and agencies, your utility can help to help low-income households pay promote the LIHEAP program, thereby bringing additional federal assistance into your community. for heating and cooling their homes ... Although this second approach may not directly benefit your water utility, the indirect benefits could The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program be substantial. A low-income household that is able (LIHEAP). LIHEAP is a federal program administered to reduce its energy bill by $300 could be better able at the state level. Each state sets specific eligibility to pay its water bill in a timely manner. This is criteria and application procedures that are subject particularly true in communities where water service to certain federal requirements. As of 2013, LIHEAP can be disconnected if a bill is not paid. provided approximately $3.2 billion per year to help low-income households pay for heating and cooling their homes, usually with annual grants in the range of $200 to $500 per year per household, though in some states the benefit can exceed $1,000 per year. The LIHEAP program requires the customer to apply for a grant, with the funding going directly to the utility for the customer’s account. The customer must designate a single utility as the recipient of the funds. LIHEAP also provides crisis funding to customers facing service disconnection or those who need immediate repairs to their heating or cooling system. Your water utility could use LIHEAP to help low-income customers in two ways. First, if you have low-income customers who use their water for heating or cooling purposes (for example, a hot-water heating system), your utility is eligible to be a LIHEAP recipient and can register with LIHEAP

10 © 2014 American Water Works Association For households in these communities, payment of the Although your water utility cannot directly benefit water bill is a very high priority. By increasing their from enhanced use of the Lifeline program in financial resources, households are able to free up your community, the indirect benefits can be funds to pay their high-priority bills. substantial. Lifeline can provide low-income households with more than $100 per year, which Telephone Lifeline program. The Federal could enhance the household’s ability to pay for Communications Commission (FCC) requires all other necessities, including water service. It may be telephone customers to contribute to the federal worthwhile therefore for your water utility to assist Universal Service Fund (USF). The USF collects in with Lifeline outreach, using efforts similar to those excess of $8 billion per year, and this money is used described for the LIHEAP program. to make telephone service more affordable to low-income customers, schools and libraries, and customers of high-cost, rural telephone companies. Lifeline can provide low-income The assistance program for low-income customers households with more than $100 per is known as the Lifeline program. As of 2014, the minimum federal Lifeline payment to a qualifying year, which could enhance the low-income customer is $9.25 per month. States household’s ability to pay for other and local telephone utilities also may provide additional funding. necessities, including water service. Unfortunately, relatively few eligible households participate in the Lifeline program. The FCC The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Qualifying, estimates that only 33% of eligible households low-income households are eligible for the EITC, receive Lifeline funds, but in some states, the which is a special credit that is claimed on the figure is probably closer to 10%. In most states the federal income tax return. The EITC goes beyond a program depends on telephone utilities to advertise tax refund and can provide funds in excess of those availability of the program and to perform outreach paid in federal income taxes by an eligible household. to their eligible customers. Generally, households with incomes less than $40,000

© 2014 American Water Works Association 11 per year and at least one child qualify for the EITC, quality of life (for example, moving to a larger though the exact amount of the credit varies with apartment). As with the other federal programs income level and family size. In 2013, the average mentioned earlier, your utility may be able to help EITC was more than $2,300 per household; 27 million with EITC outreach efforts, which could provide households received more than $63 billion through substantial benefits to your low-income customers. the EITC. Ultimately, if and when your utility adopts a Unfortunately, many households do not know that low-income assistance program, effectively getting they are eligible for this sizeable federal payment. the message out to your customers about the The Internal Revenue Service estimates that only program will be critical to its success. This can be as 79% of eligible households receive EITC. simple as posting the utility’s customer service phone number on the website and encouraging customers to call for assistance in resolving missed payments to as elaborate as a full communications plan. “Many The EITC can increase a household’s utilities also indicate [online] the types of payment available income by 10% or more, enabling and settlement options available to customers through granting extensions, creating new payment consumers to pay for necessities and to arrangements, administering budget billing options, make significant improvements in their and allowing customers to pay online and over the quality of life. phone (WRF and USEPA 2010).” Don’t forget bill stuffers and other messaging platforms, such as public meetings, community fairs, Again, additional outreach efforts are needed and other events. The community partners you’ve to encourage low-income households to take already enlisted may be able to reciprocate by advantage of this federal program. The EITC can inviting a utility representative to speak to their increase a household’s available income by 10% or clients, handing out literature explaining the more, enabling consumers to pay for necessities utility’s program, or providing space in a community and to make significant improvements in their newsletter to explain the program.

As utilities face the increasing costs of maintaining by others. And, various administrative tools can be and replacing infrastructure and treating increasingly easily implemented without creating new programs diminishing water supplies to higher and higher that will ease the affordability burden on low-income standards, the call for full-cost pricing of water and customers. These include monthly billing, budget wastewater services is rising in amplitude and billing, and conservation programs. necessity. However, “The truth is that a subset of ratepayers will always need to be subsidized,” states Greg Baird (2010), managing director and chief financial officer of AWI Consulting. He goes on to The need to make sure that say, “A subsidy is not an entitlement, but a grant of drinking“ water is safe and that assistance provided by an enterprise because it is deemed advantageous. The advantage of providing wastewater is clean is important such assistance benefits the utility’s financial to everyone—whether they fall operation by minimizing the negative impact of shut-offs, collections, and uncollectible accounts above or below the median. ... on the remaining residential customer class. Other ” intangible advantages are maintaining an acceptable level of public health and community esthetics.” AWWA encourages utilities to “think outside the bill.” By helping low-income customers access In the years ahead, water rates are likely to continue existing assistance programs, such as those for home to increase, making affordability an ongoing issue heating and telephone service, a local utility can that utilities must help their customers address. The improve its customers’ overall economic well-being, tools offered in this publication should provide a thus making the water bill more affordable. solid start toward addressing those needs. AWWA Executive Director David LaFrance (2013) In addition, the US Census Bureau has excellent said it best, “The need to make sure that drinking water online tools for learning about a community’s is safe and that wastewater is clean is important to economics. This information, combined with the everyone—whether they fall above or below the local data already collected by most utilities, can median. As providers and managers of the most reveal the extent of local affordability issues. Many precious resource on earth, we … need to ensure that drinking water utilities have already adopted afford- the price of water remains affordable for all ability programs that can be models for adoption customers—not just the top half of earners.”

AWWA. 2012. Manual M1, Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges, 6th ed. Denver, CO: American Water Works Association (AWWA). AWWA. 1996. WATER:\STATS 1996 WATER UTILITY DATABASE CD-ROM. Denver, CO: AWWA. AWWA and RFC, Inc. 2013. 2012 AWWA Water and Wastewater Rate Survey. Denver, CO: AWWA. AWWA, U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Water Environment Federation. 2013. Affordability Assessment Tool for Federal Water Mandates. www.awwa.org/Portals/0/files/resources/water%20 utility%20management/affordability/AffordabilityAssessmentTool.pdf. Accessed March 24, 2014. Baird, G.M. 2010. Water Affordability: Who’s Going to Pick Up the Check? Jour. AWWA, 102(12):16–23. Beecher, J.A. 1994. Water Affordability and Alternatives to Service Disconnection. Jour. AWWA, 86(10):61. Beecher, J.A., et al. 2001. Socioeconomic Impacts of Water Conservation. Denver, CO: Water Research Foundation. Craley, R. and C. Noyes. 2013. Water and Wastewater Rates on the Rise. Jour. AWWA, 105(8):41. Hasson, D.S. 2002. Water Utility Options for Low-Income Assistance Programs. Jour. AWWA, 94(4):128. LaFrance, D. 2013. Price, Value, and Affordability—What If Only Half of Us Could Afford Water? Jour. AWWA. Open Channel. 99(7):6. Maxwell, S. 2012. Water Is Still Cheap: Demonstrating the True Value of Water. Jour. AWWA, 104(5):31. Mumm, J. 2012. Accepting the Affordability Challenge. Jour. AWWA, 104(5):25. Pontius, F. 2008. Are Drinking Water Regulations Affordable? Jour. AWWA, 100(10):24. Rubin, S.J. 1994. Are water rates becoming unaffordable? Jour. AWWA, 86(2):79. Rubin, S.J. 2003. The Cost of Water and Wastewater Service in the United States. Duncan, OK: National Rural Water Association. Rubin, S.J., R. Raucher, C.J. Datig, and J.A. Beecher. 2004. Background Information and Perspectives on Low-Income Water Assistance Programs. AWWA Water Industry Technical Action Fund Project 792. Saunders, M., et al. 1998. Water Affordability Programs. Denver, Colo.: Awwa Research Foundation and American Water Works Association.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. Consumer Expenditure Survey. www.bls.gov/cex/csxstnd.htm. Accessed 1/21/2014. US Department of Health and Human Services. 2014. Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines. Federal Register, 79(14):3593-94 (Jan. 22, 2014). USEPA. 2005. Case Studies of Sustainable Water and Wastewater Pricing. Office of Water (4606M) EPA 816-R-05-007. water.epa.gov/infrastructure/sustain/upload/guide_smallsys- tems_fullcost_pricing_case_studies.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2014. USEPA. 1997. Combined Sewer Overflows: Guidance for Financial Capability Assessment and Schedule Development. Publication 832-B-97-004. Available for download at cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/guidedocs.cfm. Water Environment Federation. 2007. Affordability of Wastewater Service. Alexandria, VA: Water Environment Federation. Water Research Foundation (WRF) and USEPA. 2010. Best Practices in Customer Payment Assistance Programs. Project #4004. Denver, CO: Water Research Foundation.

14 © 2014 American Water Works Association US Demographic Profiles Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010 2010 Census Summary File 1— Geography: United States NOTE: For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf. Subject Number Percent Sex and Age Total population 308,745,538 (r35836) 100.0 Under 5 years 20,201,362 6.5 5 to 9 years 20,348,657 6.6 10 to 14 years 20, 67 7,194 6.7 15 to 19 years 22,040,343 7.1 20 to 24 years 21,585,999 7.0 25 to 29 years 21,101,849 6.8 30 to 34 years 19,962,099 6.5 35 to 39 years 20,179,642 6.5 40 to 44 years 20,890,964 6.8 45 to 49 years 22,708,591 7.4 50 to 54 years 22,298,125 7.2 55 to 59 years 19,664,805 6.4 60 to 64 years 16, 817,924 5.4 65 to 69 years 12,435,263 4.0 70 to 74 years 9,278,166 3.0 75 to 79 years 7, 317, 795 2.4 80 to 84 years 5,743,327 1.9 85 years and over 5,493,433 1.8 Median age (years) 37.2 (X) 16 years and over 243,275,505 78.8 18 years and over 234,564,071 76.0 21 years and over 220,958,853 71.6 62 years and over 49,972,181 16.2 65 years and over 4 0, 267,98 4 13.0

Male population 151,781,326 49.2 Under 5 years 10,319,427 3.3 5 to 9 years 10,389,638 3.4 10 to 14 years 10,579,862 3.4 15 to 19 years 11,303,666 3.7 20 to 24 years 11,014,176 3.6 25 to 29 years 10,635,591 3.4 30 to 34 years 9,996,500 3.2 35 to 39 years 10,042,022 3.3 40 to 44 years 10,393,977 3.4

© 2014 American Water Works Association 15 Subject Number Percent Sex and Age Male population (continued) 45 to 49 years 11,209,085 3.6 50 to 54 years 10,933,274 3.5 55 to 59 years 9,523,648 3.1 60 to 64 years 8, 07 7, 5 0 0 2.6 65 to 69 years 5,852,547 1.9 70 to 74 years 4,243,972 1.4 75 to 79 years 3,182,388 1.0 80 to 84 years 2,294,374 0.7 85 years and over 1,789,679 0.6 Median age (years) 35.8 (X) 16 years and over 118,315,377 38.3 18 years and over 113,836,190 36.9 21 years and over 106,880,414 34.6 62 years and over 22,015,876 7.1 65 years and over 17, 3 62,96 0 5.6

Female population 156,964,212 50.8 Under 5 years 9,881,935 3.2 5 to 9 years 9,959,019 3.2 10 to 14 years 10, 0 97, 3 32 3.3 15 to 19 years 10,736,677 3.5 20 to 24 years 10,571,823 3.4 25 to 29 years 10,466,258 3.4 30 to 34 years 9,965,599 3.2 35 to 39 years 10,137, 620 3.3 40 to 44 years 10,496,987 3.4 45 to 49 years 11,499,506 3.7 50 to 54 years 11,364,851 3.7 55 to 59 years 10,141,157 3.3 60 to 64 years 8,740,424 2.8 65 to 69 years 6,582,716 2.1 70 to 74 years 5,034,194 1.6 75 to 79 years 4,135,407 1.3 80 to 84 years 3,448,953 1.1 85 years and over 3,703,754 1.2 Median age (years) 38.5 (X) 16 years and over 124,960,128 40.5 18 years and over 120, 7 27, 8 81 39.1 21 years and over 114,078,439 36.9 62 years and over 27,95 6, 3 0 5 9.1 65 years and over 22,905,024 7.4

16 © 2014 American Water Works Association Subject Number Percent Race Total population 308,745,538 (r35836) 100.0 One Race 299,736,465 97.1 White 223,553,265 72.4 Black or African American 38,929,319 12.6 American Indian 2,932,248 0.9 and Alaska Native Asian 14,674,252 4.8 Asian Indian 2,843,391 0.9 Chinese 3, 3 47, 2 29 1.1 Filipino 2,555,923 0.8 Japanese 763,325 0.2 Korean 1,423,784 0.5 Vietnamese 1,548,449 0.5 Other Asian [1] 2,192,151 0.7 Native Hawaiian and Other 540,013 0.2 Pacific Islander Native Hawaiian 156,146 0.1 Guamanian or Chamorro 88,310 0.0 Samoan 109,637 0.0 Other Pacific Islander [2] 185,920 0.1 Some Other Race 19,107, 3 6 8 6.2 Two or More Races 9,009,073 2.9 White; American Indian 1,432,309 0.5 and Alaska Native [3] White; Asian [3] 1,623,234 0.5 White; Black or African 1,834,212 0.6 American [3] White; Some Other Race [3] 1,740,924 0.6

Race alone or in combination with one or more other races [4] White 231,040,398 74.8 Black or African American 42,020,743 13.6 American Indian and Alaska 5,220,579 1.7 Native Asian 17, 320, 8 5 6 5.6 Native Hawaiian and Other 1,225,195 0.4 Pacific Islander Some Other Race 21,748,084 7.0

© 2014 American Water Works Association 17 Subject Number Percent Hispanic or Latino Total population 308,745,538 (r35836) 100.0 Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 5 0,47 7, 594 16.3 Mexican 31,798,258 10.3 Puerto Rican 4,623,716 1.5 Cuban 1,785,547 0.6 Other Hispanic or Latino [5] 12,270,073 4.0 Not Hispanic or Latino 2 5 8, 267,94 4 83.7

Hispanic or Latino and Race Total population 308,745,538 (r35836) 100.0 Hispanic or Latino 5 0,47 7, 594 16.3 White alone 26,735,713 8.7 Black or African American 1,243,471 0.4 alone American Indian and Alaska 685,150 0.2 Native alone Asian alone 209,128 0.1 Native Hawaiian and Other 58,437 0.0 Pacific Islander alone Some Other Race alone 18,503,103 6.0 Two or More Races 3,042,592 1.0 Not Hispanic or Latino 2 5 8, 267,94 4 83.7 White alone 196,817,552 63.7 Black or African American 37, 6 8 5, 8 4 8 12.2 alone American Indian and Alaska 2, 247, 0 98 0.7 Native alone Asian alone 14,465,124 4.7 Native Hawaiian and Other 481,576 0.2 Pacific Islander alone Some Other Race alone 604,265 0.2 Two or More Races 5,966,481 1.9

18 © 2014 American Water Works Association Subject Number Percent Relationship (continued) Nonrelatives 18,300,051 5.9 Under 18 years 1,325,848 0.4 65 years and over 794,726 0.3 Unmarried partner 7,744,711 2.5 In group quarters 7,987, 32 3 (r24091) 2.6 Institutionalized population 3,993,659 1.3 Two or More Races 9,009,073 2.9 White; American Indian 1,432,309 0.5 and Alaska Native [3] White; Asian [3] 1,623,234 0.5 White; Black or African 1,834,212 0.6 American [3] White; Some Other Race [3] 1,740,924 0.6

Race alone or in combination with one or more other races: [4] White 231,040,398 74.8 Black or African American 42,020,743 13.6 American Indian and Alaska Native 5,220,579 1.7 Asian 17, 320, 8 5 6 5.6 Native Hawaiian and Other 1,225,195 0.4 Pacific Islander Some Other Race 21,748,084 7.0

Hispanic or Latino Total population 308,745,538 (r35836) 100.0 Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 5 0,47 7, 594 16.3 Mexican 31,798,258 10.3 Puerto Rican 4,623,716 1.5 Cuban 1,785,547 0.6 Other Hispanic or Latino [5] 12,270,073 4.0 Not Hispanic or Latino 2 5 8, 267,94 4 83.7

Hispanic or Latino and Race Total population 308,745,538 (r35836) 100.0 Hispanic or Latino 5 0,47 7, 594 16.3 White alone 26,735,713 8.7 Black or African American 1,243,471 0.4 alone American Indian and Alaska 685,150 0.2 Native alone Asian alone 209,128 0.1 Native Hawaiian and Other 58,437 0.0 Pacific Islander alone Some Other Race alone 18,503,103 6.0 Two or More Races 3,042,592 1.0 © 2014 American Water Works Association 19 Subject Number Percent Relationship (continued) Not Hispanic or Latino 2 5 8, 267,94 4 83.7 White alone 196,817,552 63.7 Black or African American 37, 6 8 5, 8 4 8 12.2 alone American Indian and Alaska 2, 247, 0 98 0.7 Native alone Asian alone 14,465,124 4.7 Native Hawaiian and Other 481,576 0.2 Pacific Islander alone Some Other Race alone 604,265 0.2 Two or More Races 5,966,481 1.9

Relationship Total population 308,745,538 (r35836) 100.0 In households 300,758,215 (r25980) 97.4 Householder 116,716,292 37.8 Spouse [6] 56,510,377 18.3 Child 88,820,256 28.8 Own child under 18 years 64,778,147 21.0 Other relatives 20,411,239 6.6 Under 18 years 7,779,796 2.5 65 years and over 2,941,638 1.0 Nonrelatives 18,300,051 5.9 Under 18 years 1,325,848 0.4 65 years and over 794,726 0.3 Unmarried partner 7,744,711 2.5 In group quarters 7,987, 32 3 (r24091) 2.6 Institutionalized population 3,993,659 1.3 Male 2,716,877 0.9 Female 1,276,782 0.4 Noninstitutionalized population 3,993,664 1.3 Male 2,141,333 0.7 Female 1,852,331 0.6

Households by Type Total households 116,716,292 (r426) 100.0 Family households (families) [7] 7 7, 5 3 8, 296 66.4 With own children 34,743,604 29.8 under 18 years Husband-wife family 56,510,377 48.4 With own children 23,588,268 20.2 under 18 years Male householder, no wife present 5,777,570 5.0 With own children 2,789,424 2.4 under 18 years 20 © 2014 American Water Works Association Subject Number Percent Relationship (continued) Female householder, 15,250,349 13.1 no husband present With own children 8,365,912 7.2 under 18 years Nonfamily households [7] 39,17 7,9 96 Householder living alone 31,204,909 26.7 Male 13,906,294 11.9 65 years and over 3,171,724 2.7 Female 17, 298, 615 14.8 65 years and over 7, 82 3,96 5 6.7 Households with individuals 38,996,219 33.4 under 18 years Households with individuals 65 29,091,122 24.9 years and over Average household size 2.58 (X) Average family size [7] 3.14 (X)

Housing Occupancy Total housing units 131,704,730 (r14151) 100.0 Occupied housing units 116,716,292 (r426) 88.6 Vacant housing units 14,988,438 (r9916) 11.4 For rent 4,137, 5 67 3.1 Rented, not occupied 206,825 0.2 For sale only 1,896,796 1.4 Sold, not occupied 421,032 0.3 For seasonal, recreational, 4,649,298 3.5 or occasional use All other vacants 3,676,920 2.8 Homeowner vacancy rate 2.4 (X) (percent) [8] Rental vacancy rate (percent) [9] 9.2 (X)

Housing Tenure Occupied housing units 116,716,292 (r426) 100.0 Owner-occupied housing units 75,986,074 65.1 Population in owner-occupied 201,278,493 (X) housing units Average household size 2.65 (X) of owner-occupied units Renter-occupied housing units 40,730,218 34.9 Population in renter-occupied 99,479,722 (X) housing units Average household size 2.44 (X) of renter-occupied units

(r35836) This count has been revised. Revised count: [6] “Spouse” represents spouse of the householder. 308,745,858 Revision date: 10-18-2013 It does not reflect all spouses in a household. Responses of “same-sex spouse” were edited (r25980) This count has been revised. Revised count: during processing to “unmarried partner.” 300,758,465 Revision date: 10-18-2013 [7] “Family households” consist of a householder and (r24091) This count has been revised. Revised count: one or more other people related to the house- 7,987,393 Revision date: 10-18-2013 holder by birth, marriage, or adoption. They do not (r426) This count has been revised. Revised count: include same-sex married couples even if the mar- 116,716,391 Revision date: 10-18-2013 riage was performed in a state issuing marriage certificates for same-sex couples. Same-sex couple (r14151) This count has been revised. Revised count: households are included in the family households 131,704,868 Revision date: 10-18-2013 category if there is at least one additional person (r9916) This count has been revised. Revised count: related to the householder by birth or adoption. 14,988,477 Revision date: 10-18-2013 Same-sex couple households with no relatives of the householder present are tabulated in nonfam- For more information on revised counts, see 2010 ily households. “Nonfamily households” consist of Census Count Question Resolution. people living alone and households which do not (X) Not applicable have any members related to the householder.

[1] Other Asian alone, or two or more Asian categories [8] The homeowner vacancy rate is the proportion of the homeowner inventory that is vacant “for [2] Other Pacific Islander alone, or two or more Native sale.” It is computed by dividing the total number Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander categories of vacant units for sale only by the sum of [3] One of the four most commonly reported owner-occupied units, vacant units that are for sale multiple-race combinations nationwide in only, and vacant units that have been sold but not Census 2000 yet occupied; and then multiplying by 100.

[4] In combination with one or more of the other races [9] The rental vacancy rate is the proportion of the listed. The six numbers may add to more than the rental inventory that is vacant “for rent.” It is total population, and the six percentages may add computed by dividing the total number of vacant to more than 100 percent because individuals may units “for rent” by the sum of the renter-occupied report more than one race. units, vacant units that are for rent, and vacant units that have been rented but not yet occupied; [5] This category is composed of people whose origins and then multiplying by 100. are from the Dominican Republic, Spain, and Spanish-speaking Central or South American Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary countries. It also includes general origin responses File 1, Tables P5, P6, P8, P12, P13, P17, P19, P20, P25, such as “Latino” or “Hispanic.” P29, P31, P34, P37, P43, PCT5, PCT8, PCT11, PCT12, PCT19, PCT23, PCT24, H3, H4, H5, H11, H12, and H16.

22 © 2014 American Water Works Association DP02—Selected Social Characteristics In The United States 2012 American Community Survey—1-Year Estimates Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section. Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section.

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.

Note: Data are as presented by U.S. Census Bureau and may not adhere to column headers in all cases. United States Subject Percent Margin Estimate Margin of Error Percent of Error Households by Type Total households 115,969,540 +/-150,555 115,969,540 (X) Family households (families) 76,509,262 +/-122, 329 66.0% +/- 0.1 With own children 33,612,973 +/-72, 569 29.0% +/- 0.1 under 18 years Married-couple family 55,754,450 +/-142,830 48.1% +/- 0.1 With own children under 22,423,949 +/-76,687 19.3% +/- 0.1 18 years Male householder, no wife 5,578,212 +/-43,046 4.8% +/- 0.1 present, family With own children 2,697,636 +/-28, 396 2.3% +/- 0.1 under 18 years Female householder, no 15,176,600 +/-53,498 13.1% +/- 0.1 husband present, family With own children under 8,491,388 +/- 40,891 7.3% +/- 0.1 18 years Nonfamily households 39,460,278 +/-82,851 34.0% +/- 0.1 Householder living alone 32,256,217 +/-90,665 27.8% +/- 0.1 65 years and over 11,513,067 +/-45,037 9.9% +/- 0.1 Households with one or more 37,555,698 +/-70, 588 32.4% +/- 0.1 people under 18 years Households with one or more 30,193,187 +/-54,865 26.0% +/- 0.1 people 65 years and over Average household size 2.64 +/- 0.01 (X) (X) Average family size 3.25 +/- 0.01 (X) (X)

© 2014 American Water Works Association 23 United States Subject Percent Margin Estimate Margin of Error Percent of Error Relationship Population in households 305,885,362 ***** 305,885,362 (X) Householder 115,969,540 +/-150,555 37.9% +/- 0.1 Spouse 55,722,213 +/-140,281 18.2% +/- 0.1 Child 93,933,535 +/-103,866 30.7% +/- 0.1 Other relatives 22,275,332 +/-129, 327 7.3% +/- 0.1 Nonrelatives 17,98 4, 74 2 +/-147, 789 5.9% +/- 0.1 Unmarried partner 6,960,357 +/- 42,248 2.3% +/- 0.1

Marital Status Males 15 years and over 123,174,537 +/-27, 5 52 123,174,537 (X) Never married 44,291,637 +/-88, 580 36.0% +/- 0.1 Now married, except 61,355,023 +/-132,935 49.8% +/- 0.1 separated Separated 2,301,054 +/-25,122 1.9% +/- 0.1 Widowed 3,129,475 +/-24,810 2.5% +/- 0.1 Divorced 12, 0 97, 3 4 8 +/-58,687 9.8% +/- 0.1 Females 15 years and over 129,570,612 +/-22, 581 129,570,612 (X) Never married 3 8, 3 67,4 49 +/-79,824 29.6% +/- 0.1 Now married, except 60,019,246 +/-124,012 46.3% +/- 0.1 separated Separated 3,285,688 +/-30,065 2.5% +/- 0.1 Widowed 11,865,679 +/- 40,443 9.2% +/- 0.1 Divorced 16,032,550 +/-55, 357 12.4% +/- 0.1

Fertility Number of women 15 to 50 years old who had a birth in 4,125,353 +/-34, 597 4,125,353 (X) the past 12 months Unmarried women (widowed, divorced, and never 1,483,976 +/-20, 585 36.0% +/- 0.4 married) Per 1,000 unmarried 35 +/-1 (X) (X) women Per 1,000 women 15 to 50 54 +/-1 (X) (X) years old Per 1,000 women 15 to 19 21 +/-1 (X) (X) years old Per 1,000 women 20 to 34 95 +/-1 (X) (X) years old Per 1,000 women 35 to 50 26 +/-1 (X) (X) years old

24 © 2014 American Water Works Association United States Subject Percent Margin Estimate Margin of Error Percent of Error Grandparents Number of grandparents living with own 7, 0 6 5, 5 39 +/- 57,4 89 7, 0 6 5, 5 39 (X) grandchildren under 18 years Responsible for 2,743,282 +/-30,337 38.8% +/- 0.4 grandchildren Years responsible for grandchildren Less than 1 year 579,224 +/-15,726 8.2% +/- 0.2 1 or 2 years 629,585 +/-15,261 8.9% +/- 0.2 3 or 4 years 456,263 +/-12,694 6.5% +/- 0.2 5 or more years 1,078,210 +/-19,159 15.3% +/- 0.2 Number of grandparents responsible for own grand- 2,743,282 +/-30,337 2,743,282 (X) children under 18 years Who are female 1, 7 27, 0 97 +/-19,983 63.0% +/- 0.3 Who are married 1,927,479 +/-27,9 97 70.3% +/- 0.5

School Enrollment Population 3 years and over 83,085,860 +/-89,455 83,085,860 (X) enrolled in school Nursery school, preschool 5,040,851 +/-35, 593 6.1% +/- 0.1 Kindergarten 4,246,155 +/-30, 368 5.1% +/- 0.1 Elementary school 32,875,346 +/-46,544 39.6% +/- 0.1 (grades 1-8) High school (grades 9-12) 17, 013,4 41 +/-41,341 20.5% +/- 0.1 College or graduate school 23,910,067 +/- 66,963 28.8% +/- 0.1

Educational Attainment Population 25 years and over 208,731,498 +/- 63,262 208,731,498 (X) Less than 9th grade 12,072,306 +/- 65,170 5.8% +/- 0.1 9th to 12th grade, no 16,409,962 +/-72,538 7.9% +/- 0.1 diploma High school graduate 58,495,661 +/-91,039 28.0% +/- 0.1 (includes equivalency) Some college, no degree 44,399,937 +/-90,064 21.3% +/- 0.1 Associate’s degree 16,611,110 +/- 66,837 8.0% +/- 0.1 Bachelor’s degree 37,969, 0 8 4 +/-104,778 18.2% +/- 0.1 Graduate or professional 22,773,438 +/-88,114 10.9% +/- 0.1 degree Percent high school (X) (X) 86.4% +/- 0.1 graduate or higher Percent bachelor’s degree (X) (X) 29.1% +/- 0.1 or higher

© 2014 American Water Works Association 25 United States Subject Percent Margin Estimate Margin of Error Percent of Error Veteran Status Civilian population 18 years 239,178,768 +/-30,500 239,178,768 (X) and over Civilian veterans 21,230,865 +/- 57, 5 01 8.9% +/- 0.1

Disability Status of the Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population Total Civilian Noninstitu- 308,896,460 +/-13,901 308,896,460 (X) tionalized Population With a disability 37,633,020 +/-94,880 12.2% +/- 0.1 Under 18 years 73,577,504 +/-31,899 73,577,504 (X) With a disability 3,018,315 +/-28,712 4.1% +/- 0.1 18 to 64 years 193,478,987 +/-25, 377 193,478,987 (X) With a disability 19,606,506 +/- 67, 395 10.1% +/- 0.1 65 years and over 41,839,969 +/-18, 303 41,839,969 (X) With a disability 15,008,199 +/- 49, 325 35.9% +/- 0.1

Residence 1 Year Ago Population 1 year and over 310,212,755 +/-25,814 310,212,755 (X) Same house 263,612,596 +/-229,733 85.0% +/- 0.1 Different house in the U.S. 44,766,942 +/-223,193 14.4% +/- 0.1 Same county 27,913, 5 8 0 +/-187, 8 31 9.0% +/- 0.1 Different county 16,853,362 +/-104,977 5.4% +/- 0.1 Same state 9,783,017 +/-83,977 3.2% +/- 0.1 Different state 7, 070, 3 4 5 +/-58, 599 2.3% +/- 0.1 Abroad 1,833,217 +/-32,633 0.6% +/- 0.1

Place of Birth Total population 313,914,040 ***** 313,914,040 (X) Native 273,089,382 +/-111,594 87.0% +/- 0.1 Born in United States 268,703,379 +/-107, 321 85.6% +/- 0.1 State of residence 184,556,088 +/-156,997 58.8% +/- 0.1 Different state 8 4,147, 291 +/-124, 538 26.8% +/- 0.1 Born in Puerto Rico, U.S. Island areas, or born 4,386,003 +/-41,520 1.4% +/- 0.1 abroad to American parent(s) Foreign born 40,824,658 +/-111,594 13.0% +/- 0.1

U.S. Citizenship Status Foreign-born population 40,824,658 +/-111,594 40,824,658 (X) Naturalized U.S. citizen 18,686,237 +/- 68,651 45.8% +/- 0.2 Not a U.S. citizen 22,138,421 +/-109,661 54.2% +/- 0.2

26 © 2014 American Water Works Association United States Subject Percent Margin Estimate Margin of Error Percent of Error Year of Entry Population born outside the 45,210,661 +/-107, 321 45,210,661 (X) United States Native 4,386,003 +/-41,520 4,386,003 (X) Entered 2010 or later 294,506 +/-13,678 6.7% +/- 0.3 Entered before 2010 4,091,497 +/-39, 344 93.3% +/- 0.3 Foreign born 40,824,658 +/-111,594 40,824,658 (X) Entered 2010 or later 2,851,714 +/-43,079 7.0% +/- 0.1 Entered before 2010 37,972,944 +/-100,281 93.0% +/- 0.1

World Region of Birth of Foreign Born Foreign-born population, excluding population born 40,824,553 +/-111,624 40,824,553 (X) at sea Europe 4,809,392 +/-38, 353 11.8% +/- 0.1 Asia 11,931,658 +/-53,141 29.2% +/- 0.1 Africa 1,723,895 +/-33,353 4.2% +/- 0.1 Oceania 239,861 +/-9,226 0.6% +/- 0.1 Latin America 21,311,457 +/-78,036 52.2% +/- 0.1 Northern America 808,290 +/-12,461 2.0% +/- 0.1

Language Spoken at Home Population 5 years and over 294,003,714 +/-18, 345 294,003,714 (X) English only 232,126,499 +/-132,907 79.0% +/- 0.1 Language other than 61,877,215 +/-129,197 21.0% +/- 0.1 English Speak English less than 25,088,697 +/-94,992 8.5% +/- 0.1 “very well” Spanish 38,325,155 +/-95,145 13.0% +/- 0.1 Speak English less than 16,149,456 +/-74,106 5.5% +/- 0.1 “very well” Other Indo-European 11,034,625 +/-79,281 3.8% +/- 0.1 languages Speak English less than 3,461,929 +/-43,058 1.2% +/- 0.1 “very well” Asian and Pacific Islander 9,752,336 +/-52,271 3.3% +/- 0.1 languages Speak English less than 4,618,474 +/-35, 556 1.6% +/- 0.1 “very well” Other languages 2,765,099 +/- 43,668 0.9% +/- 0.1 Speak English less than 858,838 +/-22,686 0.3% +/- 0.1 “very well”

© 2014 American Water Works Association 27 United States Subject Percent Margin Estimate Margin of Error Percent of Error Ancestry Total population 313,914,040 ***** 313,914,040 (X) American 2 3, 5 67,147 +/-90,901 7.5% +/- 0.1 Arab 1,798,991 +/-35,987 0.6% +/- 0.1 Czech 1, 5 07, 815 +/-23,682 0.5% +/- 0.1 Danish 1,296,751 +/-25,129 0.4% +/- 0.1 Dutch 4,350,633 +/- 43,932 1.4% +/- 0.1 English 25,261,814 +/-102,997 8.0% +/- 0.1 French (except Basque) 8,475,331 +/-55,608 2.7% +/- 0.1 French Canadian 1,992,174 +/-32,854 0.6% +/- 0.1 German 46,875,013 +/-113,136 14.9% +/- 0.1 Greek 1,296,119 +/-27, 0 39 0.4% +/- 0.1 Hungarian 1,4 27,110 +/-22,143 0.5% +/- 0.1 Irish 34,148,645 +/-130,918 10.9% +/- 0.1 Italian 17,343,394 +/-88,194 5.5% +/- 0.1 Lithuanian 680,912 +/-13,465 0.2% +/- 0.1 Norwegian 4,398,608 +/- 37,4 8 3 1.4% +/- 0.1 Polish 9,500,696 +/- 66,115 3.0% +/- 0.1 Portuguese 1,380,877 +/-28,735 0.4% +/- 0.1 Russian 2,895,912 +/- 41,054 0.9% +/- 0.1 Scotch-Irish 3,117, 627 +/-32,277 1.0% +/- 0.1 Scottish 5,379,735 +/-48,537 1.7% +/- 0.1 Slovak 742,738 +/-17, 871 0.2% +/- 0.1 Subsaharan African 3,008,961 +/-51,662 1.0% +/- 0.1 Swedish 3,980,614 +/- 41,929 1.3% +/- 0.1 Swiss 941,692 +/-18,807 0.3% +/- 0.1 Ukrainian 968,769 +/-20,640 0.3% +/- 0.1 Welsh 1,780,002 +/-30,844 0.6% +/- 0.1 West Indian (excluding 2,758,050 +/-40,768 0.9% +/- 0.1 Hispanic origin groups)

***** Indicates that the margin of error estimate is defined by the estimate minus the margin of error controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower is not appropriate. and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS (X) Not applicable or not available estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a Data are based on a sample and are subject to sam- discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy pling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not estimate arising from sampling variability is rep- represented in these tables. resented through the use of a margin of error. The Ancestry listed in this table refers to the total number value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. of people who responded with a particular ances- The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as try; for example, the estimate given for Russian providing a 90 percent probability that the interval

28 © 2014 American Water Works Association represents the number of people who listed Russian questions and their evaluation in the 2006 ACS as either their first or second ancestry. This table lists Content Test, see the Evaluation Report Covering only the largest ancestry groups; see the Detailed Disability. Tables for more categories. Race and Hispanic origin While the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS) groups are not included in this table because official data generally reflect the December 2009 Office data for those groups come from the Race and of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of Hispanic origin questions rather than the ancestry metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in question (see Demographic Table). certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries Data for year of entry of the native population reflect of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ the year of entry into the U.S. by people who were from the OMB definitions due to differences in the born in Puerto Rico, U.S. Island Areas or born effective dates of the geographic entities. outside the U.S. to a U.S. citizen parent and who Estimates of urban and rural population, housing subsequently moved to the U.S. units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban Fertility data are not available for certain geographic areas defined based on Census 2000 data. Boundaries areas due to problems with data collection. for urban areas have not been updated since Census 2000. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from The Census Bureau introduced a new set of the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of disability questions in the 2008 ACS questionnaire. ongoing urbanization. Accordingly, comparisons of disability data from 2008 or later with data from prior years are not Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American recommended. For more information on these Community Survey

© 2014 American Water Works Association 29 DP03—Selected Economic Characteristics 2012 American Community Survey—1-Year Estimates Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section.

Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section.

Note: Data are as presented by U.S. Census Bureau and may not adhere to column headers in all cases. United States Subject Margin of Percent Margin Estimate Percent Error of Error Employment Status Population 16 years 248,601,283 +/- 46,427 248,601,283 (X) and over In labor force 158,729,043 +/- 97, 2 59 63.8% +/- 0.1 Civilian labor force 157,703,368 +/- 97, 76 5 63.4% +/- 0.1 Employed 142,921,687 +/-110,732 57.5% +/- 0.1 Unemployed 14,781,681 +/- 57, 26 5 5.9% +/- 0.1 Armed Forces 1,025,675 +/-14,087 0.4% +/- 0.1 Not in labor force 89,872,240 +/-92,931 36.2% +/- 0.1 Civilian labor force 157,703,368 +/- 97, 76 5 157,703,368 (X) Percent unemployed (X) (X) 9.4% +/- 0.1 Females 16 years 127, 5 49,4 01 +/-29,848 127, 5 49,4 01 (X) and over In labor force 74,952,713 +/-73, 382 58.8% +/- 0.1 Civilian labor 74,822,864 +/-73,414 58.7% +/- 0.1 force Employed 67,98 8, 5 3 4 +/-70,221 53.3% +/- 0.1 Own children under 23,202,782 +/- 37, 0 6 0 23,202,782 (X) 6 years All parents in family 15,060,788 +/- 47,952 64.9% +/- 0.2 in labor force Own children 6 to 17 46,949,993 +/-48,586 46,949,993 (X) years All parents in family 33,138,547 +/-80,481 70.6% +/- 0.2 in labor force

30 © 2014 American Water Works Association United States Subject Margin of Percent Margin Estimate Percent Error of Error Commuting to Work Workers 16 years 140,862,960 +/-122,752 140,862,960 (X) and over Car, truck, or van 107,460,210 +/-120,264 76.3% +/- 0.1 -- drove alone Car, truck, or van 13,675,867 +/- 62,942 9.7% +/- 0.1 -- carpooled Public transportation 7, 0 5 3,4 5 6 +/-38, 366 5.0% +/- 0.1 (excluding taxicab) Walked 3,969,058 +/-30,555 2.8% +/- 0.1 Other means 2,560,426 +/-32,137 1.8% +/- 0.1 Worked at home 6,143,943 +/-37,377 4.4% +/- 0.1 Mean travel time to 25.7 +/- 0.1 (X) (X) work (minutes)

Occupation Civilian employed population 16 years 142,921,687 +/-110,732 142,921,687 (X) and over Management, business, 51,543,472 +/-132, 318 36.1% +/- 0.1 science, and arts occupations Service occupations 26,183,178 +/-81, 583 18.3% +/- 0.1 Sales and office 34,949,741 +/-79,770 24.5% +/- 0.1 occupations Natural resources, construction, 12,851,881 +/-54,192 9.0% +/- 0.1 and maintenance occupations Production, transportation, and 17, 393,415 +/-7 7, 6 6 8 12.2% +/- 0.1 material moving occupations

Industry Civilian employed population 16 years 142,921,687 +/-110,732 142,921,687 (X) and over Agriculture, forestry, fishing 2,830,729 +/-29,008 2.0% +/- 0.1 and hunting, and mining Construction 8,802,312 +/-51,690 6.2% +/- 0.1 Manufacturing 14,988,864 +/- 62,761 10.5% +/- 0.1 Wholesale trade 3,785,841 +/-30,786 2.6% +/- 0.1 Retail trade 16,639,780 +/- 65,872 11.6% +/- 0.1

© 2014 American Water Works Association 31 United States Subject Margin of Percent Margin Estimate Percent Error of Error Industry (continued) Transportation and warehousing, and 7, 020,96 0 +/-52,939 4.9% +/- 0.1 utilities Information 2,975,482 +/-29,955 2.1% +/- 0.1 Finance and insurance, and real estate 9,414,894 +/- 46,008 6.6% +/- 0.1 and rental and leasing Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative 15,591,744 +/- 67, 318 10.9% +/- 0.1 and waste management services Educational services, and health care and 33,113,097 +/-106, 595 23.2% +/- 0.1 social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and 13, 697,912 +/-71,169 9.6% +/- 0.1 accommodation and food services Other services, except 7,118,937 +/- 45, 319 5.0% +/- 0.1 public administration Public administration 6,941,135 +/- 45, 397 4.9% +/- 0.1

Class of Worker Civilian employed population 16 years 142,921,687 +/-110,732 142,921,687 (X) and over Private wage and 113,197,324 +/-108,242 79.2% +/- 0.1 salary workers Government 20,742,455 +/-76,283 14.5% +/- 0.1 workers Self-employed in own not incor- 8,760,153 +/- 49,622 6.1% +/- 0.1 porated business workers Unpaid family 221,755 +/-7, 394 0.2% +/- 0.1 workers

Income and Benefits (in 2012 inflation-adjusted dollars) Total households 115,969,540 +/-150,555 115,969,540 (X) Less than $10,000 8,885,815 +/-45,748 7.7% +/- 0.1 $10,000 to $14,999 6,550,068 +/- 42, 389 5.6% +/- 0.1 $15,000 to $24,999 12,889,311 +/-56,170 11.1% +/- 0.1 $25,000 to $34,999 12,033,359 +/- 48,052 10.4% +/- 0.1

32 © 2014 American Water Works Association United States Subject Margin of Percent Margin Estimate Percent Error of Error Income and Benefits (in 2012 inflation-adjusted dollars) (continued) $35,000 to $49,999 15,971,542 +/-55,844 13.8% +/- 0.1 $50,000 to $74,999 20,866,034 +/-73,232 18.0% +/- 0.1 $75,000 to $99,999 13,779,990 +/- 61,225 11.9% +/- 0.1 $100,000 to $149,999 14,366,700 +/-54,419 12.4% +/- 0.1 $150,000 to $199,999 5,345,408 +/-30,185 4.6% +/- 0.1 $200,000 or more 5,281,313 +/-30,281 4.6% +/- 0.1 Median household 51,371 +/-53 (X) (X) income (dollars) Mean household 71,317 +/-101 (X) (X) income (dollars) Households with earnings 90,088,460 +/-124,296 77.7% +/- 0.1 Mean earnings 73,069 +/-120 (X) (X) (dollars) With Social Security 33,980,061 +/-71,707 29.3% +/- 0.1 Mean Social Security 16,977 +/-24 (X) (X) income (dollars) With retirement 20,818,837 +/-73,764 18.0% +/- 0.1 income Mean retirement 23,335 +/-80 (X) (X) income (dollars) With Supplemental 6,215,750 +/-36,843 5.4% +/- 0.1 Security Income Mean Supplemental Security Income 9,058 +/-33 (X) (X) (dollars) With cash public 3,341,535 +/-29,968 2.9% +/- 0.1 assistance income Mean cash public assistance income 3,670 +/-37 (X) (X) (dollars) With Food Stamp/ SNAP benefits in the 15,814,499 +/-58,089 13.6% +/- 0.1 past 12 months Families 76,509,262 +/-122, 329 76,509,262 (X) Less than $10,000 3,846,375 +/-31,943 5.0% +/- 0.1 $10,000 to $14,999 2,592,664 +/-30,737 3.4% +/- 0.1 $15,000 to $24,999 6,531,659 +/-36,066 8.5% +/- 0.1 $25,000 to $34,999 7,044,637 +/-35,945 9.2% +/- 0.1 $35,000 to $49,999 10,192,989 +/-39,701 13.3% +/- 0.1 $50,000 to $74,999 14,666,522 +/- 61,902 19.2% +/- 0.1 $75,000 to $99,999 10,698,861 +/-52,861 14.0% +/- 0.1 $100,000 to $149,999 11, 8 37, 0 94 +/-53,798 15.5% +/- 0.1 $150,000 to $199,999 4,557,339 +/-28,709 6.0% +/- 0.1 $200,000 or more 4,541,122 +/-26,116 5.9% +/- 0.1

© 2014 American Water Works Association 33 United States Subject Margin of Percent Margin Estimate Percent Error of Error Income and Benefits (in 2012 inflation-adjusted dollars) (continued) Median family 62,527 +/-123 (X) (X) income (dollars) Mean family income 83,124 +/-147 (X) (X) (dollars) Per capita income 27, 319 +/- 46 (X) (X) (dollars) Nonfamily households 39,460,278 +/-82,851 39,460,278 (X) Median nonfamily 31,231 +/-73 (X) (X) income (dollars) Mean nonfamily 45,468 +/-142 (X) (X) income (dollars) Median earnings for 30,155 +/-33 (X) (X) workers (dollars) Median earnings for male full-time, 47,473 +/-90 (X) (X) year-round workers (dollars) Median earnings for female full-time, 37,412 +/-57 (X) (X) year-round workers (dollars)

Health Insurance Coverage Civilian noninstitution- 308,896,460 +/-13,901 308,896,460 (X) alized population With health insurance 263,281,913 +/-193,879 85.2% +/- 0.1 coverage With private health 201,212,706 +/-311,250 65.1% +/- 0.1 insurance With public 96,135,771 +/-134, 387 31.1% +/- 0.1 coverage No health insurance 45,614,547 +/-194,601 14.8% +/- 0.1 coverage Civilian noninstitutionalized population under 73,577,504 +/-31,899 73,577,504 (X) 18 years No health insurance 5,263,807 +/-56,117 7.2% +/- 0.1 coverage Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 to 193,478,987 +/-25, 377 193,478,987 (X) 64 years In labor force 148,442,883 +/- 87,9 0 3 148,442,883 (X) Employed 134,769,382 +/-104, 387 134,769,382 (X) With health 110,806,227 +/-158,202 82.2% +/- 0.1 insurance coverage

34 © 2014 American Water Works Association United States Subject Margin of Percent Margin Estimate Percent Error of Error Health Insurance Coverage (continued) With public coverage 9,150,460 +/- 44,169 6.8% +/- 0.1 No health insurance 23,963,155 +/-113,439 17.8% +/- 0.1 coverage Unemployed 13,673,501 +/-55,758 13,673,501 (X) With health 7,493,425 +/-39,458 54.8% +/- 0.3 insurance coverage With private health 4,692,307 +/-32,224 34.3% +/- 0.2 insurance With public coverage 3,110,221 +/-28,491 22.7% +/- 0.2 No health insurance 6,180,076 +/- 47,95 0 45.2% +/- 0.3 coverage Not in labor force 45,036,104 +/-85,189 45,036,104 (X) With health 35,230,912 +/-73,036 78.2% +/- 0.1 insurance coverage With private health 22,711,475 +/- 66, 574 50.4% +/- 0.1 insurance With public coverage 15,492,836 +/-63,060 34.4% +/- 0.1 No health insurance 9,805,192 +/- 62,844 21.8% +/- 0.1 coverage

Percentage of families and people whose income in the past 12 months is below the poverty level All families (X) (X) 11.8% +/- 0.1 With related children (X) (X) 18.8% +/- 0.1 under 18 years With related children (X) (X) 19.3% +/- 0.2 under 5 years only Married couple (X) (X) 5.8% +/- 0.1 families With related children (X) (X) 8.7% +/- 0.1 under 18 years With related children (X) (X) 7.1% +/- 0.2 under 5 years only Families with female householder, no (X) (X) 31.8% +/- 0.2 husband present With related children (X) (X) 41.5% +/- 0.2 under 18 years With related children (X) (X) 48.0% +/- 0.6 under 5 years only All people (X) (X) 15.9% +/- 0.1 Under 18 years (X) (X) 22.6% +/- 0.2 Related children (X) (X) 22.3% +/- 0.2 under 18 years

© 2014 American Water Works Association 35 United States Subject Margin of Percent Margin Estimate Percent Error of Error Percentage of families and people whose income in the past 12 months is below the poverty level (continued) Related children (X) (X) 21.0% +/- 0.2 5 to 17 years 18 years and over (X) (X) 13.9% +/- 0.1 18 to 64 years (X) (X) 14.8% +/- 0.1 65 years and over (X) (X) 9.5% +/- 0.1 People in families (X) (X) 13.4% +/- 0.1 Unrelated individuals (X) (X) 26.7% +/- 0.1 15 years and over

An (X) means that the estimate is not applicable or Downloads/methodology/content_test/P6b_Weeks_ not available. Worked_Final_Report.pdf. Additional information can also be found at http://www.census.gov/people/ Data are based on a sample and are subject to laborforce/. sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is repre- Workers include members of the Armed Forces and sented through the use of a margin of error. civilians who were at work last week. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of Industry codes are 4-digit codes and are based on the error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly North American Industry Classification System 2 as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error 007. The Industry categories adhere to the guidelines and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower issued in Clarification Memorandum No. 2, “NAICS and upper confidence bounds) contains the true Alternate Aggregation Structure for Use By U.S. value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS Statistical Agencies,” issued by the Office of estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a Management and Budget. discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy Occupation codes are 4-digit codes and are based of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not on Standard Occupational Classification 2010. represented in these tables. The health insurance coverage category names Employment and unemployment estimates may were modified in 2010. See ACS Health Insur- vary from the official labor force data released by ance Definitions for a list of the insurance type the Bureau of Labor Statistics because of differences definitions. in survey design and data collection. For guidance on differences in employment and unemployment While the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates from different sources go to Labor Force data generally reflect the December 2009 Office Guidance. of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in The Census Bureau introduced an improved certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries sequence of labor force questions in the 2008 ACS of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ questionnaire. Accordingly, we recommend using from the OMB definitions due to differences in the caution when making labor force data comparisons effective dates of the geographic entities. from 2008 or later with data from prior years. For more information on these questions and their Estimates of urban and rural population, housing evaluation in the 2006 ACS Content Test, see the units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban “Evaluation Report Covering Employment Status” areas defined based on Census 2000 data. Boundaries at http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/ for urban areas have not been updated since Census methodology/content_test/P6a_Employment_Status. 2000. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from pdf, and the “Evaluation Report Covering Weeks the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of Worked” at http://www.census.gov/acs/www/ ongoing urbanization.

36 © 2014 American Water Works Association DP04—Selected Housing Characteristics 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section.

Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section.

Note: Data are as presented by U.S. Census Bureau and may not adhere to column headers in all cases. United States Subject Margin of Percent Margin Estimate Percent Error of Error Housing Occupancy Total housing units 132,452,249 +/-3,899 132,452,249 (X) Occupied 115,969,540 +/-150,555 87.6% +/- 0.1 housing units Vacant housing units 16,482,709 +/-151,760 12.4% +/- 0.1 Homeowner vacancy rate 2.0 +/- 0.1 (X) (X) Rental vacancy rate 6.8 +/- 0.1 (X) (X)

Units in Structure Total housing units 132,452,249 +/-3,899 132,452,249 (X) 1-unit, detached 81,554,643 +/-96,447 61.6% +/- 0.1 1-unit, attached 7, 695, 78 8 +/-39,654 5.8% +/- 0.1 2 units 5,006,114 +/-32,000 3.8% +/- 0.1 3 or 4 units 5,880,296 +/-36,686 4.4% +/- 0.1 5 to 9 units 6,311,130 +/- 48,988 4.8% +/- 0.1 10 to 19 units 5,927,271 +/-42,333 4.5% +/- 0.1 20 or more units 11,465,984 +/- 45,014 8.7% +/- 0.1 Mobile home 8,510,590 +/-47,407 6.4% +/- 0.1 Boat, RV, van, etc. 100,433 +/-5,010 0.1% +/- 0.1

Year Structure Built Total housing units 132,452,249 +/-3,899 132,452,249 (X) Built 2010 or later 1,199,560 +/-17, 579 0.9% +/- 0.1 Built 2000 to 2009 19,799,406 +/-58,762 14.9% +/- 0.1 Built 1990 to 1999 18,348,209 +/-63,370 13.9% +/- 0.1 Built 1980 to 1989 18,326,856 +/-54,882 13.8% +/- 0.1 Built 1970 to 1979 20,944,138 +/-55,241 15.8% +/- 0.1 Built 1960 to 1969 14,577,453 +/-53,238 11.0% +/- 0.1 Built 1950 to 1959 14,397,367 +/-56,476 10.9% +/- 0.1 Built 1940 to 1949 7,072,019 +/-33,988 5.3% +/- 0.1 Built 1939 or earlier 17, 787, 241 +/-52,804 13.4% +/- 0.1

© 2014 American Water Works Association 37 United States Subject Margin of Percent Margin Estimate Percent Error of Error Rooms Total housing units 132,452,249 +/-3,899 132,452,249 (X) 1 room 2,571,344 +/-31,732 1.9% +/- 0.1 2 rooms 3,324,834 +/-28,221 2.5% +/- 0.1 3 rooms 12,165,887 +/-51, 392 9.2% +/- 0.1 4 rooms 22,119,418 +/-82,252 16.7% +/- 0.1 5 rooms 27,132,313 +/-72,875 20.5% +/- 0.1 6 rooms 23,967,579 +/- 67, 5 07 18.1% +/- 0.1 7 rooms 16,219,785 +/-55,494 12.2% +/- 0.1 8 rooms 11,187,180 +/-51,806 8.4% +/- 0.1 9 rooms or more 13,763,909 +/- 69,957 10.4% +/- 0.1 Median rooms 5.5 +/- 0.1 (X) (X)

Bedrooms Total housing units 132,452,249 +/-3,899 132,452,249 (X) No bedroom 2,852,924 +/-31,268 2.2% +/- 0.1 1 bedroom 14,848,713 +/-56,098 11.2% +/- 0.1 2 bedrooms 35,456,731 +/-77,090 26.8% +/- 0.1 3 bedrooms 52,539,071 +/-77,063 39.7% +/- 0.1 4 bedrooms 21,182,430 +/-63,016 16.0% +/- 0.1 5 or more bedrooms 5,572,380 +/-36,811 4.2% +/- 0.1

Housing Tenure Occupied housing units 115,969,540 +/-150,555 115,969,540 (X) Owner-occupied 74,119,256 +/-204,618 63.9% +/- 0.1 Renter-occupied 41,850,284 +/-99, 327 36.1% +/- 0.1 Average household size of 2.70 +/- 0.01 (X) (X) owner-occupied unit Average household size of 2.53 +/- 0.01 (X) (X) renter-occupied unit

Year Householder Moved into Unit Occupied housing units 115,969,540 +/-150,555 115,969,540 (X) Moved in 2010 or later 31, 5 07, 0 02 +/-86, 334 27.2% +/- 0.1 Moved in 2000 to 2009 45,461,532 +/-103, 598 39.2% +/- 0.1 Moved in 1990 to 1999 18,996,653 +/-73,683 16.4% +/- 0.1 Moved in 1980 to 1989 9,200,406 +/-45,714 7.9% +/- 0.1 Moved in 1970 to 1979 6,071,721 +/-31,287 5.2% +/- 0.1 Moved in 1969 or 4,732,226 +/-32,031 4.1% +/- 0.1 earlier

38 © 2014 American Water Works Association United States Subject Margin of Percent Margin Estimate Percent Error of Error Vehicles Available Occupied housing units 115,969,540 +/-150,555 115,969,540 (X) No vehicles available 10,689,431 +/- 37, 8 5 3 9.2% +/- 0.1 1 vehicle available 39,574,983 +/- 87, 6 8 4 34.1% +/- 0.1 2 vehicles available 43,295,903 +/-103,206 37.3% +/- 0.1 3 or more vehicles 22,409,223 +/-72,075 19.3% +/- 0.1 available

House Heating Fuel Occupied housing units 115,969,540 +/-150,555 115,969,540 (X) Utility gas 56,539,016 +/-94,783 48.8% +/- 0.1 Bottled, tank, or LP gas 5,542,387 +/- 45,108 4.8% +/- 0.1 Electricity 42,846,023 +/-74,703 36.9% +/- 0.1 Fuel oil, kerosene, etc. 6,809,676 +/-34,762 5.9% +/- 0.1 Coal or coke 132,151 +/-5,038 0.1% +/- 0.1 Wood 2,4 87, 241 +/-24,120 2.1% +/- 0.1 Solar energy 47,976 +/-2,991 0.0% +/- 0.1 Other fuel 520,565 +/-9,789 0.4% +/- 0.1 No fuel used 1,044,505 +/-14,735 0.9% +/- 0.1

Selected Characteristics Occupied housing units 115,969,540 +/-150,555 115,969,540 (X) Lacking complete 435,710 +/-11,167 0.4% +/- 0.1 plumbing facilities Lacking complete 924,522 +/-14,767 0.8% +/- 0.1 kitchen facilities No telephone service 2,988,112 +/-28,912 2.6% +/- 0.1 available

Occupants per Room Occupied housing units 115,969,540 +/-150,555 115,969,540 (X) 1.00 or less 112,132,529 +/-158,286 96.7% +/- 0.1 1.01 to 1.50 2,710,941 +/-25,715 2.3% +/- 0.1 1.51 or more 1,126,070 +/-18,969 1.0% +/- 0.1

Value Owner-occupied units 74,119,256 +/-204,618 74,119,256 (X) Less than $50,000 6,784,356 +/-45,203 9.2% +/- 0.1 $50,000 to $99,999 12,100,148 +/- 64,404 16.3% +/- 0.1 $100,000 to $149,999 12,245,474 +/-54,740 16.5% +/- 0.1 $150,000 to $199,999 11,370,120 +/-58,404 15.3% +/- 0.1 $200,000 to $299,999 13,393,416 +/-53,010 18.1% +/- 0.1 $300,000 to $499,999 11,068,593 +/- 44,464 14.9% +/- 0.1

© 2014 American Water Works Association 39 United States Subject Margin of Percent Margin Estimate Percent Error of Error Value (continued) $500,000 to $999,999 5,696,677 +/-32, 349 7.7% +/- 0.1 $1,000,000 or more 1,460,472 +/-15, 379 2.0% +/- 0.1 Median (dollars) 171,900 +/-257 (X) (X)

Mortgage Status Owner-occupied units 74,119,256 +/-204,618 74,119,256 (X) Housing units with a 48,726,257 +/-132,898 65.7% +/- 0.1 mortgage Housing units without 25,392,999 +/-101,183 34.3% +/- 0.1 a mortgage

Selected Monthly Owner Costs (SMOC) Housing units with a 48,726,257 +/-132,898 48,726,257 (X) mortgage Less than $300 100,603 +/- 4, 352 0.2% +/- 0.1 $300 to $499 9 07, 617 +/-14,798 1.9% +/- 0.1 $500 to $699 2,791,709 +/-26,912 5.7% +/- 0.1 $700 to $999 7, 617,10 3 +/-47,072 15.6% +/- 0.1 $1,000 to $1,499 14,002,995 +/- 57, 75 4 28.7% +/- 0.1 $1,500 to $1,999 9,658,799 +/- 44,122 19.8% +/- 0.1 $2,000 or more 13, 6 47,4 31 +/- 47,4 37 28.0% +/- 0.1 Median (dollars) 1,460 +/-2 (X) (X) Housing units without 25,392,999 +/-101,183 25,392,999 (X) a mortgage Less than $100 318,875 +/-7,17 2 1.3% +/- 0.1 $100 to $199 1,927, 74 0 +/-21,067 7.6% +/- 0.1 $200 to $299 4,165,055 +/-34,123 16.4% +/- 0.1 $300 to $399 4,897,726 +/-36,364 19.3% +/- 0.1 $400 or more 14,083,603 +/-56,662 55.5% +/- 0.1 Median (dollars) 434 +/-1 (X) (X)

Selected Monthly Owner Costs as a Percentage of Household Income (SMOCAPI) Housing units with a mortgage (excluding units 48,475,878 +/-133,811 48,475,878 (X) where SMOCAPI cannot be computed) Less than 20.0 percent 18,511,789 +/-78,965 38.2% +/- 0.1 20.0 to 24.9 percent 7, 8 3 4, 7 2 2 +/-43,020 16.2% +/- 0.1 25.0 to 29.9 percent 5,693,837 +/-35,669 11.7% +/- 0.1 30.0 to 34.9 percent 3,950,995 +/-31,306 8.2% +/- 0.1 35.0 percent or more 12,484,535 +/-54,996 25.8% +/- 0.1 Not computed 250,379 +/- 6,977 (X) (X)

40 © 2014 American Water Works Association United States Subject Margin of Percent Margin Estimate Percent Error of Error Selected Monthly Owner Costs as a Percentage of Household Income (SMOCAPI) (continued) Housing unit without a mortgage (excluding units 25,063,787 +/-99,099 25,063,787 (X) where SMOCAPI cannot be computed) Less than 10.0 percent 10,245,634 +/-53,652 40.9% +/- 0.1 10.0 to 14.9 percent 4,988,873 +/-33,780 19.9% +/- 0.1 15.0 to 19.9 percent 3,004,519 +/-24,949 12.0% +/- 0.1 20.0 to 24.9 percent 1,863,562 +/-19,886 7.4% +/- 0.1 25.0 to 29.9 percent 1,236,236 +/-14,258 4.9% +/- 0.1 30.0 to 34.9 percent 838,838 +/-14,153 3.3% +/- 0.1 35.0 percent or more 2,886,125 +/-22,253 11.5% +/- 0.1 Not computed 329,212 +/-8,219 (X) (X)

Gross Rent Occupied units paying 39,629,329 +/-100,083 39,629,329 (X) rent Less than $200 721,831 +/-13,855 1.8% +/- 0.1 $200 to $299 1,276,784 +/-15,018 3.2% +/- 0.1 $300 to $499 3,266,904 +/-24,886 8.2% +/- 0.1 $500 to $749 9,127, 518 +/-43,009 23.0% +/- 0.1 $750 to $999 9,634,214 +/-51,875 24.3% +/- 0.1 $1,000 to $1,499 10,001,083 +/- 44,209 25.2% +/- 0.1 $1,500 or more 5,600,995 +/-38, 324 14.1% +/- 0.1 Median (dollars) 884 +/-2 (X) (X) No rent paid 2,220,955 +/-24,856 (X) (X)

Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income (GRAPI) Occupied units paying rent (excluding units 38,681,971 +/-98, 311 38,681,971 (X) where GRAPI cannot be computed) Less than 15.0 percent 4,574,966 +/-38, 358 11.8% +/- 0.1 15.0 to 19.9 percent 4,708,840 +/-38,335 12.2% +/- 0.1 20.0 to 24.9 percent 4,820,400 +/-33,703 12.5% +/- 0.1 25.0 to 29.9 percent 4,458,671 +/-28,851 11.5% +/- 0.1 30.0 to 34.9 percent 3,455,267 +/-30,821 8.9% +/- 0.1 35.0 percent or more 16,663,827 +/- 63,611 43.1% +/- 0.1 Not computed 3,168,313 +/-24,874 (X) (X)

© 2014 American Water Works Association 41 (X) Not applicable or not available The 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 plumbing data for Puerto Rico will not be shown. Research indicates Data are based on a sample and are subject to that the questions on plumbing facilities that sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty were introduced in 2008 in the stateside American for an estimate arising from sampling variability is Community Survey and the 2008 Puerto Rico represented through the use of a margin of error. Community Survey may not have been appropriate The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of for Puerto Rico. error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval Telephone service data are not available for defined by the estimate minus the margin of error certain geographic areas due to problems with and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower data collection. and upper confidence bounds) contains the true While the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS) value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS data generally reflect the December 2009 Office estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries represented in these tables. of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ The median gross rent excludes no cash renters. from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities. In prior years, the universe included all owner- occupied units with a mortgage. It is now restricted to include only those units where SMOCAPI is Estimates of urban and rural population, housing computed, that is, SMOC and household income units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban are valid values. areas defined based on Census 2000 data. Boundaries In prior years, the universe included all owner- for urban areas have not been updated since Census occupied units without a mortgage. It is now 2000. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from restricted to include only those units where the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of SMOCAPI is computed, that is, SMOC and ongoing urbanization. household income are valid values. In prior years, the universe included all renter- Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American occupied units. It is now restricted to include only Community Survey those units where GRAPI is computed, that is, gross rent and household Income are valid values.

42 © 2014 American Water Works Association AWWA is the authoritative resource for knowledge, information, and advocacy to Ideal crop marks improve the quality and supply of water in North America and beyond. AWWA is the largest organization of water professionals in the world. AWWA advances public health, safety and welfare by uniting the efforts of the full spectrum of the entire water community. Through our collective strength we become better stewards of water for the greatest good of the people and the environment.

20594-2E (8/14)