1. Tract-Level Geocoding Analysis: Identifying Communities With Low CalFresh Access M. Akhtar Khan, PhD. Research Services Branch Chief Aynalem Adugna, Ph.D. Research Program Specialist Research Services Branch California Department of Social Services August 20, 2014

2. Presentation Outline  SNAP-CalFresh Access: Big picture overview.  SNAP-CalFresh Access : As it is measured.  Geo-coding: Looking below county level.  Once below the county level, ability to measure CalFresh access at neighborhood and community levels.  New proposed methodology for identifying “true hot spots” for targeted outreach efforts.  Highlight measurement issues uncovered.  Application of adjusted access measure.

3. * CalFresh Program Overview Legislative Analyst’s Office, March 2014 California* Average monthly households1,890,129 Average monthly individuals4,124,373 Average household size2.2 Average monthly benefit per household$333 Average monthly benefit per person$153 Household Characteristics— Income *

4. Eligible to Receive CalFresh Income Below Certain Thresholds. Gross income - 130 percent of federal poverty guidelines (also known as the federal poverty level, or FPL). Example: $2,008/month for a household of three (2012). Net income - income of less than 100 percent of the FPL after certain deductions are applied. Example: $1,545/month for a household of three (2012). Additional Eligibility Criteria for College Students Ineligible to Receive CalFresh  Citizenship/Immigration Status – the largest group  Drug Felony Convictions  SSI/SSP Recipients Ineligible Due to “Cash-Out.” Source: CalFresh Program Overview Legislative Analyst’s Office, March 2014

5. Measuring Program Access By this measure:  California is almost at the bottom in the Union.  3.9 million eligible Californians are not receiving CalFresh. Questions that come to mind…? Why is participation low in California? How counties within the State fare? Is it unemployment rate at local level Is it poverty level at local level? Rural-Urban divide, or something else Any issues with the way program access is measured? The Program Access Index (PAI): USDA/FNS

6. 6 The search for answers: What sub-county-level geographies should be used to identify areas of low participation?  Regression analyses show the low predictive value of unemployment rates and poverty levels of counties in estimating calFresh access.  Distribution by proportions of non-English speakers points to: o Language as an important factor o The possible role of immigration status  A measure that takes into account ineligibility for CalFresh due to citizenship status is necessary

7. 7 So the Issue! Socio-economic indicators at the county level rarely show significant correlations with CalFresh access. Explanation to this phenomena may exist at below county level – neighborhoods and communities. The question – how do we get down to the neighborhood and community levels. Need local level data and tools… Preliminary - not for reproduction

8. Geo-mapping Analytics  Geocoding analytics allow us to assemble a rich data set using a variety of resources.  Show differences in CalFresh access at below county levels – census tracts, zip codes, neighborhoods, etc. using geocoding analytics.  Highlight population subgroups having CalFresh access lower than expected based on poverty levels using geocoding analytics. 8Preliminary - not for reproduction

9. 9 Gecoding is a technique that can help us: I.map recipient level data, and II.assess CalFresh reach at community levels. Based on the poverty estimates for an area, this spatial analytical tool will enable us to identify places:  where potential CalFresh eligibles reside,  where CalFresh reach is low, and more importantly,  where more effective and targeted outreach strategies could be directed. Geocoding Preliminary - not for reproduction

10. Over two hundred tract- level data elements are linked to each dot. Example:  Total tract population.  % Below poverty level.  % Non-native.  Number of Hispanics.  Number of families with children under 18.  Number of Female- headed households.  % Speaking languages other than English.  EBT access.

11. Fresno County CalFresh Distributions (July, 2013) Preliminary - not for reproduction11

12. 12 L.A. County: Number of CalFresh Recipients in Tracts with Reported Zero Poverty Levels

13. 13 Monterey County: CalFresh Recipient Addresses and Distance from EBT Locations (Zip Codes 93905 and 93906) 286 EBT locations 7168 / 39167 locations (18 percent) within 0.1 mile 18624 / 39167 locations (47 percent) within 0.2 mile

14. Where: FDPRI:Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations SSI:Supplemental Security Income Source: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/PAI2011.pdf Program Reach Index (PRI) * Program Access Index (PAI) * Geography-based or population-based 14

15. 15 Advantages of Using PRI  Measure CalFresh access below county levels.  Measure differences in access among population subgroups.  Use results to devise targeted CalFresh outreach activities.  Help uncover the limitations of PAI as measurement methodology. Preliminary - not for reproduction

16. 16 Application Example: LA County on the Map Potential Eligible – Below 130 percent Poverty vs. CalFresh Access – PRI Preliminary - not for reproduction

17. 17 MEDIUM HIGH LO W Preliminary - not for reproduction

18. 18 MEDIUM HIGH Preliminary - not for reproduction

19. L.A. County Tracts: Percent Speaking Languages other than English by Position Above or Below Median 19 (Median = 58.3) Preliminary - not for reproduction

20. L.A. County Tracts: Percent Below Poverty by Position Above or Below Median 20 (Median = 11.2) Preliminary - not for reproduction

21. 10th 7th 5th * Deciles width/ interval ( percent) 58.5-50.5 31.5-23.4 21 Population subgroups: LA County language deciles

22. 22Preliminary - not for reproduction

23. 23

24. 1.The Program Reach Index – PRI  Raises eligibility from 125 % FPL to the State’s poverty threshold of 130%FPL Applying PRI as New Measures of Access

25. 25  The Program Reach Index (PRI) is as useful an indicator of CalFresh access at the county level as the Program Access Index (PAI).  The ability to apply PRI at below county levels makes it much more valuable in accessing CalFresh reach at community and neighborhood levels.  The PRI can help target outreach activities through mapping techniques that highlight areas needing benefits the most.  HOWEVER, does it help us in identifying “true hot spots” where outreach efforts should be targeted??? Some observations so far! Preliminary - not for reproduction

26. 26 Number of persons receiving CalFresh Poverty level of tracts Federal law Languages other than English Visualphotos.com ?? Preliminary - not for reproduction

27. 2.Adjusted Program Reach Index – APRI  Keeps the above adjustment  Removes the estimated number of undocumented persons using data on child-only CalFresh households as proxy  We refer to this method as the Child-only method Proposed New Measures of Access …contd.

28. The child-only method is an indirect method of estimating the number of persons ineligible to receive CalFresh due to citizenship status. Child-only CalFresh households are households in which all participants are minors and all adults: receive SSI are convicted felons undocumented immigrants The Child-Only Method Proposed New Measures of Access

29. . Three important questions: Q. 1 What proportions of child-only households are headed by parents/adults who are ineligible to receive CalFresh due to citizenship status? Q. 2 How many undocumented adults live in a child-only household? Q. 3 How many undocumented adults live in households where there are no children? The Child-only method…contd.

30. 30 County* Proportion of child- only households (June, 2013) Amador0.0360 Bute0.0365 Calaveras0.0369 Del Norte0.0379 Humbolt0.0415 Inyo0.0507 Lake0.0521 Lassen0.0564 Mariposa0.0585 Mendocino0.0618 Modoc0.0689 Nevada0.0746 Plumas0.0837 Shasta0.0961 Siskiyou0.1005 Tehama0.1075 Tuolumne0.1108 Average0.0653 Median0.0585 Answer 1: 6 percent of child-only cases in every county are due to non-immigration causes such as or parents on SSI and that the remaining 94 percent are due to immigration status * Alpine, Mono, Sierra and Trinity are excluded Regions are per. Thomas MaCurdy, Mancuso and Margaret O’Brien-Strain, The Rise and Fall of C a l i f o r n i a ’s We l f a r e Caseload: Types and R e g i o n s, 1 9 80– 1 9 9 9, Public Policy Institute of California, PPIC, 2000.

31. Number of adults in child-only CalFresh households Answer 2: There are 1.77 undocumented adults in each child-only household. Answer 3: Number of adults in non-participating non-child-only households  For every 177undocumented adults residing in child-only households there are 124 undocumented persons residing in households without children. 31 Undocumented Households with Children Number of households (000s) Adults per household Total adults 2-parent 507 2 1,014 1-parent 155 1 Other 9 2 18 Total 6711,187 Average1.77 Undocumented Households without Children Number of households (000s) Persons per household Total persons Married couple 1182236 Other families 29387 Solo adult men 4351 Solo adult women 1371 Total 719895 Average 1.24

32. CalculationObjectiveResult 15,136 x 0.94 Estimate the number of households that are child-only due to the parents’ citizenship status 14,228 14,228 x 1.77 Estimate the number of undocumented adults residing in child-only households 25,184 25,184 + ( 25,184 x (124/177)) Estimate the total number of undocumented persons (those residing in households with children + those residing in households without children) 42,827 Validation 23.4 ÷ 15.07 Fresno’s poverty rate relative to the statewide average1.55 1.55 x 32.5 * Estimate the number of undocumented persons in Fresno that are CalFresh-poor (130% FPL or below) for every 100 undocumented persons in the county 50.5 42,812 x (100/50.5) Estimate the total number of undocumented persons in Fresno County 84,858 * This is a minimum percentage for all counties (based on simulation) Validating the Child-Only Method Fresno County, 2011 (15,136 Child-Only Households) 32

33. Validation: Ten largest child-only counties, 2011 Total Number of Undocumented Persons Child-Only Households Undocumented (130% FPL) Child-Only, 2011 PPIC (2011)* Los Angeles 119,837 338,954 964,501 916,000 Orange 29,734 84,101 258,774 289,000 San Bernardino 21,870 61,858 179,320 150,000 San Diego 17,967 50,819 156,366 198,000 Riverside 17,706 50,081 154,095 146,000 Fresno 15,136 42,812 84,858 49,000 Santa Clara 13,468 38,094 117,211 180,000 Kern 11,845 33,503 72,614 46,000 Sacramento 11,260 31,848 97,995 65,000 Alameda 10,808 30,570 94,062 124,000 Statewide356,6271,008,705 2,864,5042,874,500 33

34. The Child-Only Method vs. PPIC’s method  The Child-Only Method (poverty-based) appears to give a better estimate of undocumented persons than PPIC’s: o for counties with higher poverty level than the statewide average o in general, for counties where agriculture is the predominant economy  The PPIC method (tax-return-based) appears to give a better estimate of undocumented persons than the Child-only method: o for counties with lower poverty level than the statewide average o for counties with predominantly non-agricultural economies 34

35. SUMMARY: Statewide PAI Gain Using Different Estimates Statewide Program Access Under Six Scenarios Numerator 2011 Denominator 2011 % Receiving %age Point GAIN FNSFNS (2011)3,760,8667,684,310 49 -- Adjusted Program Reach Index - APRI Child-Only 0.94 x 356,6273,760,8667,349.091 51 2 Pew 0.94 x 356,627 x 1.783,760,866 7,087,602 53 4 0.94 x 356,627 x 1.78 x 1.943,760,8666,526,696 58 9 Urban Institute 0.94 x 356,627 x 1.773,760,8667,090,954 53 4 0.94 x 356,627 x 1.77 x 1.703,760,8666,675,605 56 7 35

36. L.A. County (June, 2013) True + False “hot-spots” LA County: Program Reach Index - PRI, June 2013 36

37. True “hot-spots” True “hot-spots” LA County: Adjusted Program Reach Index - APRI, June 2013 37

38. PRI = 0.64 APRI = 0.72 PRI = 0.64 APRI = 0.72 PRI = 0.47 APRI = 0.54 PRI = 0.47 APRI = 0.54 PRI = 0.21 APRI = 0.22 PRI = 0.21 APRI = 0.22 PRI = 0.53 APRI = 0.63 PRI = 0.53 APRI = 0.63 L.A. County Regions 38

39. Kern 39

40. 40

41. LIMITATIONS OF THE CHILD-ONLY METHOD Numerator and Denominator Data Issues  The reliability of APRI is affected by percentage of unmatched addresses due to P. O. Box addresses.  The denominator becomes negative for tracts with 0 eligibles and where the eligibles based on 130% poverty (formula below) is lower than the SSI component and/or the child-only households component.  Due to small sample sizes and large margins of error, the ACS shows many tracts with fewer eligible persons than the number of persons receiving CalFresh; this leads to APRI greater than1.  A single address is used to provide CalFresh benefits to hundreds or thousands of beneficiaries (over 6,100 recipients in one L.A. County address and 5,100 recipients in one Fresno County address) making it difficult to interpret APRI maps for surrounding areas. 41

42. The reliability of APRI increases with increasing geographic scale Tract Zip code CalFresh regionCounty Denominator margin of error Numerator includes recipients from outside of geographic unit 42 LIMITATIONS….Summary

43. Conclusions  Geocoding enables us to analyze CalFresh data in the context of the environments in which recipients live.  Estimates of undocumented persons from the Child-Only Method are broadly consistent with county-level estimates from PPIC and state- level estimates from DHS and PPIC. o Any discrepancies most likely reflect differences in methodological focus - persons receiving public assistance (Child-Only) vs. persons receiving taxable income (PPIC).  The Child-Only Method can be used with confidence at county levels and for regions within a county. o In some instances, Zip code or tract-level analysis may be feasible.  It appears that in places where non-English speakers are a minority (example: LA Southwest) the participation rate is significantly lower (APRI = 0.22) than in places where they are a majority. 43

44. THANK YOU