One Out Of Many Pdf

[Ronna Bordelon]

SocialSecurity payments and Supplemental Security Income have been instrumental in providing economic security for older adults in the US. Additionally, Medicare, which provides health insurance to 66 million people age 65 or older and younger adults with long-term disabilities, offers financial protection by helping to cover the cost of medical care, while Medicaid provides additional benefits and cost-sharing assistance to many Medicare beneficiaries with low incomes. Despite these economic and health supports, many older adults live on relatively low incomes. The average Social Security benefit is around $1,900 per month, but millions of retired workers and their spouses receive much less than that, because of lower wages earned during their working years or because they claimed benefits before their full retirement age. (A small share of older adults in the U.S. are not eligible to receive Social Security benefits at all.) And though the peak of high inflation from 2022 has subsided, prices on many consumer goods and services have not declined to previous levels, posing a threat to the financial security of many individuals ages 65 and older who live on fixed incomes.

To provide context for understanding the financial needs and well-being of older adults, this brief analyzes the latest data on poverty rates among the 58 million non-institutionalized adults ages 65 and older in the U.S overall, based on both the official poverty measure and the Supplemental Poverty Measure, as reported by the Census Bureau. To measure poverty under the official measure, the Census Bureau uses specific dollar thresholds, which vary by family size and age of family members but do not vary geographically. In 2022, the poverty threshold was $14,040 for a single person age 65 or older and $17,710 for a household of two people 65 or older. In contrast to the official poverty measure, the Supplemental Poverty Measure accounts for geographic area and homeownership status and also reflects financial resources and liabilities, including out-of-pocket medical spending, taxes, and the value of in-kind benefits (e.g., food stamps). For 2020 and 2021, the Supplemental Poverty Measure also incorporated temporary COVID-19-related financial resources provided to individuals, such as stimulus payments. (See Appendix for more details on both measures). (The Census Bureau poverty thresholds analyzed in this brief are different from the Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines that are used to determine income eligibility for certain programs).

The analysis examines poverty rates among older adults at the national level in 2022, the most recent year available. It uses three-year averages (2020-2022) for poverty estimates by demographic characteristics (age, gender, race/ethnicity, health status) and at the state level. Because the Supplemental Poverty Measure accounted for temporary COVID-19-related payments in 2020 and 2021, the estimates for demographic groups and states based on the three-year averages are lower relative to the national Supplemental Poverty Measure poverty rate for 2022. This brief also assesses trends in poverty rates among older adults over the 10-year period between 2013 and 2022.

Under both the official poverty measure and the Supplemental Poverty Measure, the poverty rate among people ages 65 and older was higher among adults ages 80 and older, women, and people self-reporting fair or poor health, based on three-year averages for 2020-2022. Additionally, larger shares of older Black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and people identifying as multiple races had incomes below poverty compared to White adults ages 65 and older, based on both measures. The rate of poverty and the number of people living in poverty was higher for most demographic subgroups under the Supplemental Poverty Measure than under the official poverty measure, except for older Black and American Indian or Alaska Native adults, and adults reporting fair or poor health, where rates between both measures were similar. These three-year average estimates include two years (2020 and 2021) when the Supplemental Poverty Measure accounted for temporary COVID-19-related payments to individuals.

Overall, 1.5 million adults ages 80 and older lived in poverty under the official measure, compared with 2.3 million adults ages 70-79 years and 1.7 million adults ages 65-69 (the numbers living in poverty based on the Supplemental Poverty Measure were 1.8 million, 2.7 million, and 1.9 million, respectively).

Notably, nearly half of adults ages 80 and older, or 6.0 million, had incomes below 200% of poverty under the Supplemental Poverty Measure, compared to 34.2% of those ages 65-69. Similar to the official poverty measure, a larger share of adults ages 80 and older than those ages 65-69 and 70-79 had incomes below 200% of poverty.

Similarly, larger shares of older Black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and people identifying as multiple races had incomes below 200% of poverty than older White adults, based on both measures.

Poverty rates by both race and ethnicity and gender mirrored the overall pattern. For example, poverty rates among older Black, Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska Native women were twice as high as those among older White women, based on the official measure (Appendix Tables 1 and 2).

The poverty rates presented in this brief apply to non-institutionalized people ages 65 and older, and not the total Medicare population, which includes both people ages 65 and older and younger people with permanent disabilities, and both facility residents and people living in the community. The CPS ASEC does not include older adults residing in institutions, such as nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. Rates of poverty among the total Medicare population would be larger than the estimates presented here because income levels are lower among both Medicare beneficiaries under age 65 with disabilities and those living in long-term care facilities.

Finally, estimates in this brief from the Public Use Research Files may not precisely align with those published by the Census Bureau due to disclosure protections such as topcoding. Additionally, the use of pooled three-year estimates for demographic and state-level data yields slightly different results compared to single-year estimates published elsewhere.

Differences in methodology between the official measure and the Supplemental Poverty Measure: The official measure and SPM produce different estimates of poverty because their methodology varies in several ways. Both measures determine poverty estimates by comparing the financial resources of families against poverty thresholds, which are minimum dollar amounts needed to meet basic needs. These thresholds vary by family size and composition. While the official measure defines resources as cash income, the Supplemental Poverty Measure accounts for resources other than cash (e.g., in-kind government benefits) and expenses (e.g., out-of-pocket medical expenses). The differences in methodology between both measures are summarized below (Table 1):window.addEventListener('message', function(event) {if (typeof event.data['datawrapper-height'] !== 'undefined') {var iframes = document.querySelectorAll('iframe');for (var chartId in event.data['datawrapper-height']) {for (var i=0; i

Each applicant may complete up to two versions of the application. The allowance of two different applications gives you the ability to showcase different sets of skills and experiences. This provides you with the flexibility to tailor your applications, particularly in regards to the motivational statement, to the many different AmeriCorps programs to which you want to apply.

You can submit each version (two in total) for up to 10 service opportunities This allows an applicant to have up to 20 active applications submitted at one time (Application Version 1 submitted to Projects 1-10 and Application Version 2 to Projects 11-20).

When applying to NCCC you also have the option of submitting one team leader application. You also have the choice of submitting one regular application and one team leader application. You may only have two applications in total.

Renowned for complex cases, the many faces of UTHealth Houston are advancing health care for women and children. From diagnoses to customized treatment plans, our teams of experts combine clinical expertise with leading-edge research to provide the highest quality care and the best outcomes at every stage of your life.

The report also finds that many of the new poor will be in countries that already have high poverty rates. A number of middle-income countries will see significant numbers of people slip below the extreme poverty line. About 82% of the total will be in middle-income countries, the report estimates.

The convergence of the COVID-19 pandemic with the pressures of conflict and climate change will put the goal of ending poverty by 2030 beyond reach without swift, significant and substantial policy action, the World Bank said. By 2030, the global poverty rate could be about 7%.

Progress was slowing even before the COVID-19 crisis. New global poverty data for 2017 show that 52 million people rose out of poverty between 2015 and 2017. Yet despite this progress, the rate of reduction slowed to less than half a percentage point per year between 2015 and 2017. Global poverty had dropped at the rate of around 1 percentage point per year between 1990 and 2015.

In addition to the $1.90-per-day international poverty line, the World Bank measures poverty lines of $3.20 and $5.50, reflecting national poverty lines in lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries. The report further measures poverty across a multidimensional spectrum that includes access to education and basic infrastructure.

The prospect of less inclusive growth is a clear reversal from previous trends. Shared prosperity increased in 74 of 91 economies for which data was available in the period 2012-2017, meaning that growth was inclusive and the incomes of the poorest 40 percent of the population grew. In 53 of those countries, growth benefited the poorest more than the entire population. Average global shared prosperity (growth in the incomes of the bottom 40 percent) was 2.3 percent for 2012-2017. This suggests that without policy actions, the COVID-19 crisis may trigger cycles of higher income inequality, lower social mobility among the vulnerable, and lower resilience to future shocks.

3a8082e126