At a forum in 2017, Assemblyman Chad Mayes, R-Yucca Valley (San Bernardino County), noted that California has “the highest poverty rate in the nation.” Fact-checkers, progressives and conservatives have joined Mayes in a growing chorus calling attention to the fact that more than 20 percent of Californians lived in poverty from 2014 to 2016 — the highest rate in the nation. Much of this is based on the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, though the Public Policy Institute of California’s poverty measure finds the same thing.

There is much controversy over poverty measures, but even putting those disagreements aside, California still has the highest poverty rate in the U.S. Why?

It is certainly not, like some conservatives allege, because our social policies are too generous. There is no evidence that a stronger safety net discourages Californians from working. Even among Californians in poverty, nearly 70 percent live in working households. Moreover, the state’s labor force participation rate is significantly higher than other states from Alabama to Arizona that offer much less generous social policies.

Rather, California has the highest supplemental poverty measure rate simply because of our highest-in-the-nation home prices. If housing prices in California were at the median seen across the rest of the United States, the state’s supplemental poverty measure rate would drop by nearly a third — to 11.7 percent from 17.1 percent. California would then rank 30th among the states based on 2015 data. This might not be surprising, as 29 percent of Californians spend more than half their monthly income to keep a roof over their heads.

The problem with these measures The supplemental poverty measure is a huge improvement over the outdated and deeply flawed official U.S. measure of poverty because, unlike the official measure, the supplemental poverty measure assesses people’s incomes by including all taxes, tax credits and welfare benefits. Also, the supplemental poverty measure defines who is poor relative to current consumption standards and adjusts for local housing costs. Poverty scholars overwhelmingly prefer the supplemental poverty measure, and these commentators deserve credit for using it. But the measure isn’t perfect. Survey respondents tend to under-report whether they received welfare transfers like Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (food stamps). We correct the supplemental poverty measure by employing the Urban Institute’s TRIM3 model. After correcting for under-reporting, California’s supplemental poverty rate in 2015 falls to 17.1 percent from 19 percent. Even with this correction, California has the highest poverty rate.

Read More

Still, this begs the question of whether California’s poverty rate should depend so exclusively and overwhelmingly on housing costs. It seems reasonable to assume that poor people would struggle with both food and housing costs. So, if California really has the highest poverty rate, we should expect it to also have high food insecurity.

However, only 4.1 percent of Californians experienced “very low food security” from 2014 to 2016. That is the eighth-lowest rate among the 50 states. By contrast, Arizona’s very low food security was nearly 40 percent higher (5.8 percent). Arizona happens to be the only state in the United States that forces people off the federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families after only 12 months, the most ruthless approach in the country. California’s generous social policies appear to be more effective at reducing food insecurity than a focus solely on the supplemental poverty measure would suggest.

So while we applaud the use of the supplemental poverty measure, we urge caution in claiming California has the worst poverty in the United States. We propose two alternative measures for monitoring California’s poverty alongside the supplemental poverty measure.

The first asks: How many Californians have less than half the median income of all Californians?

The second asks: How many Californians have less than half the median income of all Americans?

Both of these are relative measures like the supplemental poverty measure, which is how most international poverty researchers define poverty. These measures acknowledge that people have a wide range of expenses, and people are poor based on all expenses and relative to the prevailing standards of the people around them in California or all of the United States.

Our estimates of California’s poverty use the same data as the supplemental poverty measure, and incorporate the Urban Institute’s model as well. Using this measure, we find 13.4 percent of Californians were poor relative to the California median in 2015. With this measure, California ranks 29th among the 50 states. We also find 13.7 percent of Californians were poor relative to the U.S. median. With this measure, California ranks 24th among the 50 states.

With both alternative relative measures, California is in the middle of the pack of states.

It’s good news that Californians are debating its high poverty. Careful measurement is essential to this debate. Whether California is the highest in the nation or in the middle of the pack, it certainly has high poverty compared with other rich democracies. To reduce poverty, we need to focus on lower housing costs and more, not less, generous social policies.

David Brady is a professor of public policy and director of the Blum Initiative on Global and Regional Poverty at UC Riverside. Zachary Parolin is a researcher at the University of Antwerp’s Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy.