An Assessment of Service Delivery Plans Submitted to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs for the Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program more

Texas State University eCommons@Texas State University Applied Research Projects, Texas State University-San Marcos 5-1-2000 Public Administration Program An Assessment of Service Delivery Plans Submitted to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs for the Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program Mary Lou Garcia Texas State University-San Marcos, Political Science Department, Public Administration, casconst@axs4u.net Recommended Citation Garcia, Mary Lou, "An Assessment of Service Delivery Plans Submitted to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs for the Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program" (2000). Applied Research Projects, Texas State University-San Marcos. Paper 151. http://ecommons.txstate.edu/arp/151 This Research Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Public Administration Program at eCommons@Texas State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Applied Research Projects, Texas State University-San Marcos by an authorized administrator of eCommons@Texas State University. For more information, please contact ecommons@txstate.edu. AN ASSESSMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM MARY LOU GARCIA AN APPLIED RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED I PARTIAL FULFILLMENT N FOR THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SOUTHWEST TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY SPRING 2000 POSI 5397 DR.PATRICIA SHIELDS FACULTY APPROVAL: + ABSTRACT An Assessment of Service Delivery Plans Submitted To The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs For The Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program. The paper begins by discussing issues related to poverty including the definition of poverty, the nature and causes of poverty, the effects of poverty, and the public perceptions about the poor. The discussion then focuses on recent changes to welfare legislation particularly those resulting from the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996. The paper then focuses on general issues related to program planning and then turns to a discussion of the Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program (CEAP), a program designed to address the issue of poverty and administered by a state agency, the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA). The conceptual framework for the research is developed from the requirements of the Service Delivery Plan (SDP) for CEAP, issued by TDHCA. Service delivery plans submitted for Fiscal Year 1999 and 2000 are analyzed to see if they conform to tho requirements promulgated by the department. The methodology and results of the research are described in the latter half of the paper. Results show that the majority of SDPs submitted to TDHCA for CEAP do not have all the required elements. Recommendations are, therefore, developed in response to the results. By Mary b u Garcia Table of Contents Chapter One - Introduction Research Purpose Description of Chapters Chapter Two Review of the Literature Introduction Definition of Poverty Official Definition of Poverty Problems With Official Definition of Poverty Has Poverty Gotten Worse or Better? Nature and Causes of Poverty Modernization Theory Poverty Studies Individualistic and Structuralist Beliefs of Poverty Effects of Poverty Health Issues Mental Health Issues Housing Issues Feminization of Poverty The Elderly Racial and Ethnic Differences Among the Poor Public Perceptions About the Poor Chapter Three Social Policy Issues and Program Planning Introduction Social Policy Issues Personal Responsihili t y and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 Program Planning - - Chapter Four - Setting Introducing the Conceptual Framework The Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program (CEAP) Energy Crisis Component Co-Payment Component Elderly and Disabled Assistance Component Heating and Cooling Component The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCAI Service Delivery Plans (SDP) Conceptual Framework Summary Table 4.1 - Summary of the Conceptual Framework Chapter Five - Methodology Introduction Content Analysis Advantages of Content Analysis Disadvantages of Content Analysis Unit of Analysis for Research Sample for Research Statistics for Research Chapter Six - Results Introduction Required Elements Table 6.1 - Required Elements: Summary of Findings Budget lnforrnation Table 6.2 - Budget Information: Summary of Findings Program Narrative - Description of Organization Table 6.3 - Program Narrative - Description of Organization: Summary of Findings Unmct Need Table 6.4 - Unmet Need: Summary of Findings Available Resources Table 6.5 - Available Resources: Summary of Findings Prograrn Objectives Table 6.6 - Program Objectives: Summary of Findings Direct Services Support Table 6.7 - Direct Services Support: Summary of Findings Case Management Table 6.8 - Case Management: Summary of Findings Project Description of Four Program Components Table 6.9 - Project Description of Four Program Components: Summary of Findings Chapter Seven Conclusion Summary of Findings Recommendations ConcIusion - References Appendix A. State of Texas Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program AppIicatiodState Plan for Federal Fiscal Year 2000 77-80 Appendix B. Provisions for Program Year 2000 Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program (CEAP) Program Service Delivery Plan Appendix C. List of CEAP Service Delivery Plans Reviewed for Applied Research Project Appendix D. Summary Sheet for CEAP Service Delivery Plans Appendix E. Comparison of Median Incomes Poverty Rates for Counties in Texas Chapter One INTRODUCTION Poverty is an experience of doing without that touches every part of Iife and family. It is a daily struggle that permeates the whole of family life. After all, household income not only determines access to amenities, lifestyles, and choices, it also regulates access to power structures. Household income is a key resource for families and affects health, education, leisure activities, and choice of housing. It is apparent to the general public and especially to those who work in the social service field that poor people exist. Nevertheless, it is difficult to understand the daily struggles faced by the poor and to be sympathetic to their situation unless experienced first hand. For example, to those individuals more fortunate, it is hard to imagine not having enough money to purchase the necessities of life including food, clothing, medical care, shelter, and utilities. The constant threat of eviction, of having the utilities disconnected, of having the car repossessed, of not being able to find employment because of lack of affordabIe day care, transportation, or job skills is a reality faced by the poor. The issue of poverty clearly falls within the scope of public administration. It is a social problem that requires appropriate policy and policy implementation to effectively address the problem. Since the New Deal, the US government and policy makers are expected to respond to a social crisis such as poverty. They are expected to respond to such a crisis by designing comprehensive antipoverty programs that effectively and efficiently transition people out of 1 poverty. A clear understanding of the effects and causes of poverty is therefore important in order for policy makers to develop more effective strategies for dealing with this complex social problem. After a century of research intended to help prevent poverty, social investigators and policy makers are still struggling to identify feasible and politically-acceptable solutions to the problems. Many social programs have been developed at the federal, state, and local level to address the issue of poverty. For example, there are antipoverty programs that provide recipients with affordable housing, food, medical insurance, affordable day care, and cash assistance. The Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program (CEAP) is one antipoverty program. CEAP is a utility assistance program funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and authorized by the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). This act and the purpose of the CEAP program are discussed in further detail in the chapter four. This paper discusses the issue of poverty including the definitions, the nature and causes, and the effects of poverty. Changes in welfare legislation resulting from the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation A t of 1996 which greatly changed the c welfare system in the United States are then discussed. In addition, the importance of program planning to designing effective and efficient antipoverty programs is also presented. More specifically, the paper focuses on the administrative mechanism used to plan the Texas CEAP program. The research for this paper concentrates on the administrative mechanism developed by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) to plan the CEAP program: the Service Delivery Plan. The Service Delivery Plan or SDP is a tool used by organizations to describe to TDHCA the methodoIogy to plan, implement, and otherwise deliver allowable client assistance as authorized by the CEAP contract, applicable assurances/issuances, and provisions of LIHEAP. A Department-approved plan must be in place before a contract is released and any funding awarded to organizations for administration of the CEAP program. Organizations are monitored annually to insure compliance with their individual service delivery plans, LIHEAP assurances, contract guidelines and financial management control system. The SDP and the annual monitoring process are two methods that hold organizations that receive federal monies to administer the CEAP Program accountable to the tax payers and to the funding source. It is the author's hope that this paper will provide an example of Public Administration in action through the description of an actual public program. Research Purpose The purpose of the empirical portion of the paper is three fold. The first purpose is to examine the problem of poverty. The second purpose is to describe the requirements of a service delivery plan (SDP) for the Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program (CEAP). The third purpose of the paper is to assess CEAP service delivery plans using the requirements developed by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) a standard of as comparison. Description of Chapters Chapter two begins by providing a review of the literature on the issue of poverty including the definitions, nature and causes, and effects of poverty. A description of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 which greatly changed the wetfare system in the United States is also discussed in chapter two. Chapter three begins by discussing the importance of program planning in designing effective and efficient responses to the complex problem of poverty. Chapter four is the setting chapter. The chapter narrows the focus of the research to discuss CEAP in more detail, providing the guidelines and purpose for the program used to create the requirements of the SDP and LIHEAP, the act which authorizes CEAP. It is in chapter four where the conceptual framework is developed. Chapter five specifies the methodology used for the research. The conceptual framework providing the guiding principle for the organization of the entire paper is summarized. The method of analysis is also described. In addition, the statistical technique and unit of analysis are explained and justified in chapter four. The statistics used and the sampling frame are also detailed. Chapter six is the results chapter. The chapter describes the statistical results of the quantitative analysis. The final chapter, chapter seven summarizes the paper and presents conclusions and recommendations resulting from the research findings. Chapter Two REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction In order to understand the requirements of the Service Delivery Plan for the Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program, it is imperative to first understand what the program purpose is: to assist households living in poverty to meet their immediate home energy needs with a secondary emphasis on reducing the energy needs and cost of such households. Chapter two examines the issue of poverty in several ways. First, various definitions of poverty are presented. Second, the nature and causes of poverty are discussed. Third, in an effort to understand factors that contribute to poverty, four theories on how societies became modernized are described. Fifth, the five most influential studies on poverty are presented. Sixth, individualistic and structural beliefs of poverty are discussed followed by a description of the effects of poverty. Chapter two concludes with a discussion of the general public's perceptions of who the poor are. The material discussed in chapter two and in the following chapter are intended to build the conceptual framework guiding the research in this paper. Blackbum (1 99 1, p. 12) describes poverty as an experience of doing without that touches every part of life and family. Poverty is a daily struggle that permeates the whole of family life. The scientific study of poverty is one of the oldest continuous topics for investigation in modem social science. Much has been written labout the social distribution, incidence, and depth of See for example Rainwater( I98 1 ), Banfield (1968). Goodwin (1983)- Wilson (19871, Jencks (1992), Duncan (1984)- Ellwood (1988), Gilder (198 I). Murray (1W4), Mead (1 986 & 1992). McLanahan & Garfinkel (1989), Farber ( 1989). Schillccr (1 984), Beeghley (1983), hxinn & Stem (1988)- Caputo (1991), Rosenman (l988), Davidson (1976). Glazer (1995). 1 poverty. Despite so much research on the topic, the popular mental images of who the poor are, where they live, and how they live, has lagged behind a changing reality. In addition, after a century of research intended to help prevent poverty, social investigators and policy makers are still struggling to identify feasible and politically acceptable solutions to the problem. It is obvious to those who work with the poor that poverty today remains a real and serious problem in the United States. It is also clear that there is no one face of poverty and that simplistic images of the poor only lead to a misunderstanding of the topic. Therefore, it is critical that policy makers and those who work with the poor understand the nature of poverty in order to devise more effective strategies for fighting this problem. The purpose of chapter two is to provide a definition of poverty, to explain the nature and causes of poverty, and to describe the effects of poverty. In addition, a discussion of the attitudes and perceptions the general public has towards the poor and issues related to social policy matters will be presented. Definition of Poverty "Poverty" and "the poor" are "highly controversial terms whose meanings are shaped by beliefs and current opinions about the nature and causes of poverty" (Blackburn, 1991, p.7). Poverty is a term which has distinct meanings to different people. The words "destitute", "illbeing", "powerless," and "vulnerability" are so frequently used in conjunction with "poverty," that the conceptual differences between them has become blurred. A review of the literature reveals that there are varied opinions of what constitutes poverty and that no universally agreed upon definition of poverty has been established. For example, Ro\lintrez(l94 1 ), considers families to be in poverty when their incomes are insufficient to obtain the minimurn necessities for the maintenance of phy sical efficiency. To wnsend(19791,points out that individuals experience poverty when they lack the resources necessary to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities, and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary in the societies to which they belong. The Council of Ministers, EEC(198 l), holds that individuals live in a state of poverty when their resources are "so small as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life of the member state to which they live"(B1ackbun1, 1991, p.9). Others like Joseph and Sumption (19791, say that a family is in poverty if it cannot afford to eat. In their global assessment of rural poverty, the International Fund for Agricultural Development identified sight broad components of poverty. They include the following: 1. Material Deprivation - The first component of poverty includes inadequate food supplies, poor nutritional status, poor health, poor education, lack of clothing and housing, fuel insecurity, and absence of provisions for emergencies: 2. Lack of Assets - Another component of poverty identified by the International Fund for Agricultural Development covers both material assets such as land and agricultural inputs and human capital such as education and training; 3. Isolation - The third component of poverty tries to capture social, political, and geographic marginalization. 4. Alienation - Another component of poverty identified by the International Fund for Agricultural Development results from isolation and exploitative social relations and includes people that lack identity and control, are unsmployed and underemployed, lack marketable skills, and have limited access to training and education. 5. Dependence - Poor people are often exposed to skewed dependency relationships that can be found for example betwen landlord and tenant, and employer and employee. This is the fifth component of poverty. 6. Lack of Decision Making Power - Another component of poverty identified by the International Fund for Agricultural Development is a result of limited participation and freedom of choice. 7. Vulnerability to External Shocks - External shocks is the seventh co~nponent poverty of which can be caused by factors found in nature(droughts and floods), markets (coIIapse in commodity prices and labor supply and demand), demography (loss of a household's earning member, death, and divorce), health (illness of earning member), and war. 8. Insecurity - The final component of poverty identified by the International Fund for Agricultural Development is defined as the risk of being exposed to physical violence (Jazairy et al., 1992). Some social scientists assert that it is possible to define a minimum standard for physical survival and that the needs of the poor do not change through time. These scientists subscribe to an absolute definition of poverty. Other social scientists view poverty as relative to the kind uf society people live in and subscribe to a relative definition of poverty. This view implies that poverty is about being poor in comparison to the standard of living of others and about being unable to do the things that are generally accepted as part of a way of life. In conclusion, the definitions of poverty found in the literature can generally be divided into income-based defmitions, basic-needs definitions, and participatory definitions. The income-based approach to defining poverty seeks to specify a level of income per capita in a l~ousehold below which the basic needs of the family cannot be satisfied. The basic-needs approach to defining poverty specifies a set of minimal conditions of life, usually involving the quality of the dwelling place, degree of crowding, nutritional adequacy and the water supply. Under the basic-needs approach, the proportion of the population lacking these conditions are used to estimate the degree of poverty. In the participatory approach to defining poverty, respondents from communities are invited to identify their perceptions of their needs, priorities and requirements for minimal secure livelihood. Official Definition o Poverty f There are two official poverty definitions, one used by the federal government in general and one specifically used by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In the mid 1960s, the federal government adopted this official definition of the "poverty line." The "poverty line" is an amount of annual income estimated to be necessary for minimal economic survival and social participation in the United States (Blank, 1997, p. 10). The official measure is a revised version of one first developed by Mollie Orshansky at the Social Security Administration in the early 1960s. This method for measuring poverty has remained the basis of the U.S. definition of poverty ever since and is used by the Bureau of the Census to assess which people were poor during an earlier year (Triest, 1998, p.98). The information generated annually by the Bureau of the Census is viewed as an important measure of the effectiveness of programs and policies to aid the low-income popuIation, the level of unmet economic need in the United States, and the characteristics of those who are most in need. In addition, the "official" poverty estimates determine eligibility cutoffs for certain Federal programs such as the Head Start Program, the Food Stamps Program, the National School Lunch Program, the Child Health Insurance Program, and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The calculations of poverty lines used by the Federal Government were based on the minimal amount of money that the Department of Agriculture estimated a family of a given size 9 needed to spend in order to maintain adequate nutrition. The Department found through a survey of food consumption, that families of three or more persons typically spend about 1/3rd of their income on food. Based on this information, the poverty threshold was set by multiplying t l ~ e cost of the Department of Agriculture's "economy" food plan by a factor of three. For smaller families and persons living alone, the cost of the economy food plan was multiplied by factors that were slightly higher in order to compensate for the relatively larger fixed expenses of smaller households. The poverty line is updated each year by multiplying the 1965 line by the increase in the Consumer Price Index to account for changes in inflation on the economy. Therefore, poverty in the United States is officially defined as those people who live in families with cash income levels below the official U.S. poverty line (Blank, 1997, p. 10). The second official definition of poverty is used by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to determine eligibility for federal poverty programs. The OMB measure calculated each year by the Department of Health and Human Services is derived by inflating the most recent Census poveny thresholds based on the prior year's change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (Congressional Budget Office, 1985). Following is the 2000 Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines: Size of Family Unit 1 2 3 4 4% Contiguous States and D.C. d 8,350 I 1,350 14,150 17,050 Alaska J 10,430 5 6 7 8 I9,950 22,850 14,060 17,690 2 1,320 24,950 28,580 25,750 2&6SO 32,210 35,840 Hawaii 9 9,590 12,930 16,270 19,610 22,950 26J90 29\630 32,470 Problems With The OfJicial DeJinition of Poverty At least two problems exist with the method used by the Federal Government to calculate poverty. First, since the current definition of poverty was set in the mid-1 960s, many noncash public assistance programs have grown in size. These include the Food Stamp program, medical insurance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, and reduced rental housing assistance programs such as Section 8. The benefits from these programs are not counted in family income and, thus, not considered when calculating a family's poverty status (Blank, 1997, p.10). If benefits from noncash public assistance programs were included, the poverty count would be lower among groups that receive substantial noncash assistance. The second problem with the current method of calculating the poverty line is that taxes and unavoidable work expenses are not subtracted from a family's resources. If they were included in the poverty calculation, more low-income working families would be counted as poor. There are also no adjustments made for differences in cost-of-living across regions or between urban and rural areas (Blank, 1997, p. 10). Therefore, measuring the incomes of the lowest income groups is not a simple task. Cash income overestimates the number of the poor, and many individuals do not report their total income since doing so might reduce their eligibility for cash and in-kind transfers. In addition, a growing body of literature says that the Consumer Price Index and related official measures overstate the rise in the true cost of living and, therefore, understate the rise in real personal income (Feldstein, 1999, p.37). There is also the problem of classifying someone as poor if his income is only temporarily low. Economists generally view a family's level of consumption as a 11 better measure of its economic well-being than its current money income (Triest, 1998, p.109). Feldstein (1 999) warns that these measurement difficulties should make us cautious about attempting to assess changes in the extent of poverty over time. He also contends, however. that poverty today is a real and serious problem in the United States and other countries. Has Poverty Gotten Worse Or Better? Official U.S. poverty statistics based on household income imply that the War on Poverty ended in failure. On the other hand, poverty estimates reliant on household consumption imply that the War on Poverty was indeed a success (Jorgenson, 1998, p.79). According to the Bureau of the Census. the proportion of the U.S. population betow the poverty level of income reached a minimum of 1 I .l Oio in I 973. This ratio rebounded to 15.2% in 1983 and has fluctuated within a narrow range since then. These figures give rise to the widespread impression that the elimination of poverty is difficult and even impossible to fight. Jorgenson and Slesnick, on the other hand, showed that the proportion of the U.S. population below the poverty level of consumption fell to 10.9% in 1973. This reduction in poverty was only slightly below the poverty incidence as measured by income in that year, and the poverty ratio for consumption declined further reaching 6.8% in 1983 (Jorgenson, 1998, p.79). Thus, measures of poverty based on consumption imply that antipoverty programs should not be lightly abandoned as advocated by some conservatives. At the same time, liberal concerns about the alleged persistence of poverty may be misplaced. "While poverty has not been eradicated, as envisioned by poverty warriors in the 1960s, the combined impact of economic 12 growth and expansion of income support programs has reduced the incidence of poverty to modest proportions" (Jorgenson, 1998, p.80). Triest (1 998) contends that the evidence indicates that over the past century, there has been an increase in the percentage of people in the United States who are poor; although, one can reasonably argue that the official census figures either understate or somewhat overstate the increase. For example, according to the official rate, even at the peak of the economic expansion of the late 1980s, there was a higher percentage of the population with income below the poverty line than there was 20 years earlier (Triest, 1998, p.97). Please refer to Appendix E for recent poverty numbers in Texas. Nature And Causes of Poverty Views on poverty have differed throughout the years as economic and social conditions changed and as new perspectives emerged. For example, at the end of the 19th century, "poverty was seen as a naturally occurring problem waiting to be solved (Cheal, 1996, p. 18). Poverty was viewed as an unfortunate result of the inevitable workings of the labor market. It was also attributed to the failure of poor people to manage their affairs. Laziness or addiction to heavy drinking and other wasteful expenditures were considered along with unequal access to financial resources as possible causes of poverty in the 19th century. By the end of the 20th century, poverty was viewed as a "problem for which attempted solutions had proven to be inadequate or counter productive" (Cheal, 1996, p. 18). The attention of policy makers was focused mainly on barriers to access financial resources and on limitations in the markets ability to provide adequate family income (Cheal, 1996, p. 19). 13 Moderntzut ion Theories Cheal(1996) presents four theories about how societies became modernized to help understood factors that contribute to poverty. For example, the Standard Modernization Theory suggests that poverty is likely to occur only if "families fail to adapt successfully to change, and especially if they take on deviant or pathological forms" (Cheal, 1996, p.4). The Critical Modernization Theory maintains that "people who make poor choices about careers or relationships or who do not allocate their resources effectively are likely to fall into the bottom level of society, characterized by material want and chronic financial insecurity" (Cheal, 1996, p.4). The Radical Modernization Theory presented by Cheal(I996)contends that poverty is a result of women's unequal progress relative to men. The Post Modernization Theory, on the other hand, stresses the "structural fragility" of the modern family, the movement toward more individual emancipation, and economic dislocation as factors that contribute to poverty in a modem society (Cheal, 1 996, p. 10). Poverty Studies There are numerous studies that attempt to explain the nature and causes of poverty. The five most influential studies identified by Cheal(1996) are discussed here. One of the most important early studies of poverty was Seebohom Rowntree's (1 902) description of the poor in the northern English city of York. Rowntree distinguished between "primary poverty" due to insufficient income and "secondary poverty" due to inappropriate 14 expenditures (Cheal, 1996, p. 19). His most lasting contribution was to break down the analysis of the immediate causes of poverty into distinct household types. For example, Rowntree identified the following six causes of poverty in 1899: 1 . chief wage-earner was in regular work but at low wages; 2. family contained a large number of children; 3. person who used to be the chief wage-earner died; 4. chief wage-earner was too old or too ill to engage in regular employment; 5. chief wage-earner had only irregular employment which was infrequent or involved short hours; and 6. chief wage-earner was unemployed. Rowntree conducted two further studies in York in 1936 and in 1950. The principle change discovered by Rowntree between 1899 and 1936 was the high increase in poverty due to unemployment of the chief wage-earner. Rowntree concluded that the primary cause of poverty in 1950 was old age. Gunnar Myrdal's study in 1944 also proved influential. He concluded that the United States contained groups of people who were "held apart spatially, socially, and economically from the majority of Americans who lived in comfortable circumstances" (Chea1, 1996, p.22). Myrdal referred to the "caste line" between whites and blacks and concluded that discrimination existed as a social barrier which resulted in a large proportion of poor blacks. As a resuIt of Myrdal's work, sociologists came to see poverty as a consequence of uneven and unequal modernization in a stratified economy. The poor were viewed as "those who lagged behind the rest of society in terms of one dimension or more of life" (Cheal, 1996, p.23). This category included racial minorities, people in rural communities, the physically disabled , and the old who had retired from regular employment. Michael Harrington (1 964), was also vital in the poverty research field. He argued that a new kind of poverty had emerged in the United States by the 1960s. The "old poverty" had been a normal condition of life for the majority of people in an economically-underdeveloped society. The "new poverty", on the other hand, was a "poverty of low aspirations among people who had been left behind in the rush to affluence" (Cheal, 1996, p.23). Harrington called these people "the rejects." He described them as "victims of an impersonal process that selected some for progress and discriminated against others" (Cheal, 1996, p.23). Harrington also contended that there had been three distinct historical systems of poverty during the 19th and 20thcentury. The first system was the pauperization of the 19thcentury industrial working class. The second system of poverty which Harrington identified consisted of the pockets of poor people who failed to benefit from the economic abundance between 1945 and 1970. The third era of poverty, according to Harrington, started around 1970 in the United States and was triggered by economic globalization. Harrington argues that late 20thcentury poverty is different from either forms of poverty before it because it does not strike only the classically vulnerable - namely the unskilled and the immigrant with little education. Enzo Mingione's 1993 work is also important. He concluded that what is different about the "new poverty" is not the number of poor people or their recent increase but the "apparent lack of any prospect for fundamental improvement" (Cheal, 1996, p.27). Mingione describes the "new poverty" as being "economically and politically intractable" and as "chronic and spatially concentrated and extreme" (Cheal, 1996, p.28). The fjnal influential study on poverty identified by Cheal was conducted by Peter Townsend in 1979. He argued that poor people did not constitute a uniform stratum in society but, rather. consisted of a variety of social minorities. Townsend defined a social minority as "individuals or families who have some characteristics in common which marks them off from ordinary people and which prevents them from having access to, or being accorded certain rights which are available to others, and who therefore are less likely to receive certain kinds and amounts of resources" (Cheal, 1996, p.24). Townsend stated that policies adopted by society toward minority groups included attempts to manage their numbers and to manage an orderly transition between majority and minority groups. individualistic And Struturalist Beliefs of Poverty The poor, although suggestive of a cohesive population, denotes a group characterized by great diversity. Therefore, the causes of poverty vary from subgroup to subgroup within the population. Generally, however, there appears to be two identifiable views about the causes poverty. Individualistic beliefs hold the poor responsible for their own plight through their lack of ability, ef'forts, or morals (Wilson. 1996, p.413). This also includes the psychological or social inequality of individuals and pathologically dysfunctional lifestyles such as drug abuse, alcoholism, and mental illness. Many believe that individuals are poor through their own choices, rational or irratio~~al (Feldstein, 1999, p.40). For example, Feldstein (1991) points out that some individuals may choose leisure over cash income even though this choice leaves them poorer than they would otherwise be. Some people choose poverty in error. For example, individuals may think they are making a rational decision when in reality their facts are wrong. For example, they may think that they may not like work as much as staying at home but wouId discover the opposite if they went to work. Many of the recent discussions about poverty have emphasized certain behavioral problems such as teen pregnancy, poor work habits, parental desertion, or involvement in drugs and crime as defining characteristics for poverty. These discussions, however, do not accurately characterize many low-income families (Blank, 1997, p. 1 3). In fact, many scholars believe that "viewing poverty as a self-inflicted condition ignores the social forces that give rise to poverty" and that policies premised on this assumption will inevitably be misguided (Chafel, 1997, p.458). Structural beliefs on the other hand, view the responsibility of poverty as not entirely belonging to the poor themselves. They contend that much of the responsibility of poverty belongs elsewhere - namely, with social structural factors and barriers to opportunity. Thus, structuralists see the poor as suffering from circumstances largely beyond their control (Wilson, 1996, p.413). For example, inequality of capitalism as an economic system that causes shortages of jobs and low pay and taxation policies that work against the poor are seen as causes of poverty. In addition, structuralists blame inadequate schools and discrimination as contributing to the plight of the poor. There exists a small, but serious, amount of very long-term unemployment in the United States that creates poverty and hardship. The most commonly recognized reason for poverty in America, however, is the inability of poor individuals to earn more than a very low hourly wage (Feldstein, 1999, p.39). This outcome is often attributed to inadequate schooling or training. Of course, the problems of low human capital as a source of poverty is not just a matter of schooling but also of low cognitive ability. Thus, the causes of poverty are complex and varied. Possible causes of poverty mentioned in the literature include lifestyle choices, lack of ability and talents, loose morals and drunkenness, lack of effort, and low wages in some businesses and industries. Poverty may also be caused by exploitation of the poor by rich people, by failure of society to provide enough jobs, and by society's failure to provide good schools. It is apparent that there is no one face of poverty in American and that the face of the poor has changed over time. Nevertheless, many of these changes are mirrored throughout society among the middle class as well as the poor (Blank, 1997, p. 14). For example, there are more single mothers, fewer elderly living in poverty, and smaller family sizes throughout all segments of society. Thus, the poor are an extremely heterogeneous group of persons. One half are either below the age of 18 or over the age of 65. Although poverty among the elderly is at an all-time low, poverty among children remains high and is associated with the growth in singleparent families. In addition, almost 40% of all poor families with children are still headed by married couples. Thus, the poor are both white and black, singled and married, young and old. Effects of Poverty As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, poverty is an experience of doing wj thout that touches every part of life and family. After all, household income not only determines access to amenities, lifestyle, and choices. Household income also regulates access to power structures and is a key resource for families that affects health, education, leisure activities, and choice of housing. Health Issues The daily experience of doing without not only brings material hardships. It also affects the access individuals have to heaIth care. There exists a clear association betwcrn poverty and health, and health differences are obvious among different social groups (Blackburn, 199 1, p.29). Poor diets are akso a reality for many families living in poverty. Problem diets are often attributed to inefficient food purchasing and irresponsible budgeting, a preference for unhealthy food. and a lack of knowledge concerning the value and composition of a healthy diet (Blackburn. 1991. p.5 1 ). Menrul Heulrh lsslres Poverty has been described as creating social and emotional needs, relative powerlessness, and lack of freedom. Research indicates that those social groups who suffer the poorest mental heatth are also the groups who commonly find themselves in poverty (Blackburn, 199 1, p. 1 08). For example, higher levels of unhealthy behaviors such as alcohol and cigarette smoking have been attributed to low income groups. In addition, feelings of stress and powerlessness is strong in the daily experience of individuals living in poverty. Poverty itself is also likely to bring about more severe life events such as bereavement, loss of employment, and threats of loss due to serious illness or accidents for families (Blackburn. 1991, p. 1 1 1 ). This situation partly explains the higher risk of depression and mental illness among low income groups. In addition, social and emotional deprivation may weaken a person's beliefs that he can exercise personal control. The stress of poverty has also been associated with higher rates of child abuse (Blackburn, 1991, p. 11 6). Housing Issues The quality of the home environment has an important bearing on a perso~~'s quality of life. The home environment also has a pervasive effect on a person's healtl~ on their and relationships with other people. In addition, housing protects people from physical and mental illness. "Like food and eating, poor housing affects health directly through physiological processes, and indirectly through behavioral and psychological processes" (Blackburn, 1991, p.77). Housing conditions can also help or hinder parents in their role as caregivers. In addition, home ownership obviously can be a major source of personal wealth since a home can be used or invested as collateral or as a way of passing on wealth. Therefore, housing is a marker of social status and social mobility. It is a key resource that can "mediate a family's access to other health resources such as leisure, transportation, and health care facilities" (Blackbum, 199 1, p.77). Unfortunately, many low income families are confined to housing that is badly designed and built and in a poor state of repair. This situation means that fuel bil Is rnay be increased through damp condensation problems and poor insulation. In fact, "together with housing costs, fuel costs account for a significant part of the weekly household expenditures for low income families" (Blackman, 1991, p.88). FueI costs account for a greater proportion of the expenditures of low income families than higher income families and, thus, are a major source of debt for low income families. Thus, poverty is a daily struggle that permeates the whole of family life and that has some serious effects on all levels of existence. Feminization of Poverty "The face of poverty has altered dramatically over the past 25 to 30 years" (Pressman, 1998, p.57). A picture of the poor a quarter century ago would show an elderly couple living in Appalachia or on a farm in the South or Midwest. Today, poverty displays a different face - a distinctly feminine one (Pressman, 1998, p.57). No type of poverty is more characteristic of discussion of postmodem fami 1ies like that of the female-headed sole-parent family (C heal, 1996. p.58). The prevalence of poverty among sole-parent families challenges modern ideologies in three major ways: 1 , it challenges the assumptions about the necessary connection between reason, individual choice, and socioeconomic progress; 2. it challenges the view of modern societies as child-centered societies. and 3. it challenges the idea that modem societies are self-regulating systems that are capable of solving their social problems (C heal, 1996, p.59). Today, with welfare reform legislation', the fate of sole-parent families hangs in the balance. On the one hand, welfare reform legislation is driven by a desire to force single mothers off the welfare rolls. On the other hand, some policy makers are stalled by a fear of further disadvantaging the already disadvantaged children. "Postmodern policy makers hold out no hope of solving a problem for which the cure may be worse than the disease" (Cheal, 1 996, More children now grow up in female headed sole-parent fanlilies as a result of separation or divorce than at any other period in U.S. history. Unfortunately, children who live in households headed by separated or divorced women are likely to be poorer than children in husband-wife families. Married couples with children also have a broad housing advantage over separated or divorced women with children. For example, two parent families in the United States are more than twice as likely to own their own home, more likely to live in a single home, and their dwellings are younger on average than the homes of families headed by separated or The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reccrnciliation ACI IPROWRA) o f 19% divorced mothers (Cheal, 1996, p.65). In addition, separated and divorced mothers pay a smaller proportion of their total income into financial security plans than do married couples. The absolute difference in their financial security payments is also very large (Cheal, 1996, p.68). As the number of single-parent families has grown in the United States, single mothers and their children have increased as a share of the poor population (Blank, 1997, p. 18). In fact, among all age groups, race groups, and family types in the United States today, a single mother with children has the highest probability of being poor. Unfortunately, statistics indicate that previously married women with children in America are five times as likely as currently married women with children to be on welfare (Cheal, 1996, p.69). The major difference between currentIy married and previously married mothers does not lie in their labor force participation levels. The difference lies in the fact that when they are not employed, previously married mothers depend primarily on public income transfers. However, currently married mothers depend mainly on private intra-family income transfers, presumably from their husbands. Thus, as poverty becomes feminized, the proportion of children in poverty rises. Research indicates that impoverished children are more likely to be unproductive and impoverished adults. This outcome makes poverty a vicious cycle. In addition, because welfare benefits go primarily to women and their families, a greater body of poor women require either a dramatic rise in welfare spending or sharp program cutbacks. In conclusion, the underlying reasons for the feminization of poverty appears to include rising divorce rates, the rising independence of women resulting in more never married mothers, the changing age and racial structure of the population, and the rising labor force participation by married women. The Elderly At the end of the 19Ihcentury and in the first half of the 20thcentury, the elderly were a poverty-stricken section of the population. After WW 1 , public pensions and other programs for 1 the elderly have increased. The growth occurred primarily in Social Security retirement benefits combined with other assistance programs aimed at the elderly. In addition, an expansion of private pension among workers occurred throughout the early 1980s. Hence, more elderly persons receive private-pension income now than in the past. The elderly today enjoy a more favorable position than any other groups such as households headed by women (Cheal, 1996, p. 157). They are one of the biggest success stories for public policy since expansion in government benefits to the elderly has resulted in very low poverty rates among this group (Blank, 1997, p.20). The elderly who remain poor are largely older widowed or divorced women who accrued little pension or Social Security income on their own and who now find themselves destitute following a husband's death. In recent decades, programs serving children and their families have grown more slowly than other programs in the United States. Spending on pensions, however, has increased rapidly. According to Cheal(1996) this occurrence is due to an increase in the number of older people in recent years. Studies have also shown that the public supports governmental assistance for the elderly over other groups (Klemmack, 1983, p.3 10). For example, the elderly were perceived to be more in need of, more deserving of, more grateful for, and less responsible for problems resulting in the need for energy assistance than were persons in other categories (Klemmack, 1980, p.307). Racial And Ethnic Differences Among The Poor Statistics indicate that members of racial and ethnic minority groups in the United States are poor in disproportionate numbers (Blank, 1997, p.2 1 ). The reasons cited are many and include the following: I . Blacks have been particularly subject to housing discrimination which has prevented them from following the road pursued by urban white families who moved to the suburbs when jobs started shifting there from the cities; 2. Minority workers still face exclusion and discrimination from many employers, limiting their wages and employment options; 3. Minority workers have lower levels of formal education on average; and 4. Recent immigrants face cultural and language barriers and skill barriers when searching for a job (Blank, 1997, p.2 1). Public Perceptions About The Poor Generally, there appears to be three distinct positions that influence public perceptions about the poor. The conservative view posits that welfare programs encourage dependency and that participation in welfare programs results in a reduction in work effort. The principle way to solve the problem of not working according to the conservative position is through "work fare" programs. Liberals generally see the problem of the urban underclass as having been exposed by an unbalanced welfare state. Liberals believe that high benefits were funneled toward other groups whose needs are not as great. The radical position views the rules and practices of welfare bureaucracies as demeaning and exploiting their clients and robbing them of self-respect and autonomy. The solution according to radicals is a universal guaranteed income. For centuries, Americans have distinguished between the "deserving poor," who are trying to make it on their own and the "undeserving poor," who are lazy, shiftless, or drunken and prefer to live off the generosity of others. As Walter Lippmann argued 70 years ago, our opinions and behaviors are responses not to the world itself, but to our perceptions of that world. "It is the pictures in our heads that shape our feelings and actions, and these pictures only imperfectly reflect the world that surrounds us" (Gilens, 1996, p.5 15). Lippmann continues to explain that just as important, our experience of the world is largely indirect. Our opinion, Lippmann wrote, "cover a bigger space, a longer reach of time, a greater number of things, than we can directly observe" (Gilens, 1996, p.5 15). They have, therefore, to be pieced together out of what others have reported, he concludes. Survey data show that public perceptions of poverty are wrong in at least one crucial respect. Americans substantially exaggerate the degree to which blacks compose the poor. (Gilens, 1 996, p.5 16). In addition, white Americans with the most exaggerated misunderstandings of the racial composition of the poor are the most likely to oppose welfare. Gilens (1996) found that the correspondence of public misunderstandings and media misrepresentations of poverty reflects the jntluence of each upon the other. He concluded that American's view on poverty and welfare are colored by the belief that economic opporturlity is widespread and that anyone who tries hard enough can succeed. Gilens (1 996) also found that the public is more sympathetic toward some age-groups of poor people than others. For example. working-age adults are expected in the public's view to support themselves. Poverty among this group is vie wed by many as indicating a lack of self-discipline. In addition, Gilens (1 996) concluded that children and the elderly are, to a large extent, not held to blame for their poverty. These groups are viewed much more favorably as candidates for governments assistance. Gilens (1 996) also found that differences in personal exposure to poor people of different races appeared to have little impact on perceptions of the poor as a whole. The political consequences of these misrepresentations are clear. A t n ~ e reflection of social conditions would show the poverty population to be primarily non-black. "By implicitly identifying poverty with race, the news media perpetuate stereotypes hat work against the interests of both poor people and African Americans" (Gilens. 1996. p.53 8). An extensive body of descriptive sampling research has detailed American attitudes toward welfare programs and welfare spending. What can be concluded from this research is that the American public overwhelmingly subscribes to the principle of helping the needy, supports spending for education and health programs, and favors assistance for the elderly, the disabled, and children. However, the public seems less enthusiastic in their support of public assistance or cash support for able-bodied adults. "These polls show fairly widespread support for the idea of time limits, work requirements, and various eligibility restrictions, particularly those that seem to reinforce the values of work, family, and self-sufficiency" (Pereira, 1 998. p.399). Various bet iefs about the nature of poverty and the fairness of the opportunity structure in American also have figured prominently in explanations of public support for welfare programs and spending ( Pereira, 1998, p.400). These beliefs include economic individualism, the tendency to favor an individualist as opposed to a structuralist interpretation of poverty and jnequal i ty . This belief appear to account for significant variations in public support for welfare programs in the U.S. There are also values of equality and egalitarianism in U.S. society which translate into beliefs about the social rights of citizens and the social responsibilities of government. These beliefs have been linked to favorable views of welfare programs and welfare spending, especially among the disadvantaged. The final view which figwes prominently in the explanation of public support for welfare programs and spending is the view that social welfare programs, especially public assistance, are ineffective and wasteful, rewarding lack of effort on the part of recipients and failing to secure accountability on the part of program administrators. This view has also been shown to be an important determinant of public support for welfare programs. Whether the problem of poverty is resolved depends, at least in part, on developing ideologies that question negative stereotypes and that counter rather than legitimate the status quo. Individualist explanations must be replaced wj th structural ones that acknowledge the need for economic reform. The responsibility for poverty does not entirely belong to the poor themselves. Much of the responsibility for poverty belongs elsewhere. The next chapter focuses on antipoverty policy issues and specifically on changes made to the weifarc: system as a result of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PROWRA) of 1996. In addition, the importance of program planning to developing and designing effective and efficient antipoverty programs is discussed. Chapter Three SOCIAL POLlCY ISSUES AND PROGRAM PLANNING Introduction The purpose of chapter three is to discuss how the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation ACT (PROWRA) of 1996 changed the welfare system in the United States. The information presented in chapter three is imponant since legislation has a direct impact on how welfare programs are designed and funded. In addition, the importance of program planning to developing and designing effective and efficient programs to combat poverty are discussed. Social Policy Issues Feelings of frustration, anger, and a desire for something different in dealing with poverty in the United States is widespread. Two questions are asked over and over. Why has poverty been so intractable and persistent in the United States. and how can we design and implement a more effective system of antipoverty programs? Unfortunately, there is no one answer to the problems of poverty. Poor people are too diverse, and their problems are too complex. However, the changing face of poverty in the United States demands programs and policies that are appropriate to today's problems. The use of public assistance for a response to economic vulnerability suggest that an antipoverty strategy should focus on structural versus behavioral factors (Caputo, 1997, p.24). Gans proposed that such an antipoverty policy should emphasize four principles: 1. The policy must be job-centered; 2. Most jobs will have to be created by the private sector; 3 . Programs should be universal, serving everyone, rather than specific and targeting only the poor; and 4. Antipoverty policies should focus on economic criteria and thus be race blind and gender neutral. Policies which Gans believe meet the above criteria include raising the minimum wage, expanding earned-income tax credits, promoting skills training programs, and governtnznt providing incentives for the private sector to promote work sharing and to upgrade part-time work (Caputo, 1997, p.241, Personal Responsibility And Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 No government policy has as many supporters and opponents as does social welfare policy in the United States. To supporters, social programs represent the positive contribution of the govement. These contributions include providing the basic necessities of food, housing, health care to the needy, and utility assistance. Contributions also include providing income payments to the retired, the disabled and the unemployed and investing in human capital through education, training, and unemployment programs. To opponents of the welfare state, the above social programs are viewed as unnecessary government intervention, as failed programs that discourage initiative and encourage dependence, and as costly programs that are beyond government budgetary control. "The debate over the shape and size of social programs has occurred in every Congress in every administration since the inception of the programs" (Brewing, 199 1 p. I ). . In 1996, the welfare system in the Untied States was changed dramatically with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). This new welfare reform legislation represents some level of agreement among liberals and conservatives that the U. S. welfare system needed reform (Pereira, Joseph, Ryzin, & Gregg, 1998, p.398). Changes enacted through PRWORA affected children with disabilities receiving Social Security lncome Disability Benefits (SSI), families receiving cash assistance through Aid For Dependent Children (AFDC), non-working adults receiving benefits from the Food Stamps program, legal aliens receiving benefits from Food Stamps, SSI, and AFDC, and made changes in the country's Child Support Enforcement System. The most important and far reaching changes enacted under PRWORA, however, are those made to the 61 year old AFDC program that provided cash assistance to poor families with children (Pavetti & Wemmerus. 1999, p.5 17). PRWORA eliminated the AFDC program and the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) training program and replaced them with a block grant to states to create a work-oriented Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF) program. TANF is 100% federally funded. A state's allocation, however, is reduced if states fail to meet a fiscal maintenance-of-effort requirement and required work participation rates. For example, PRWORA requires states to meet steadily increasing work participation rates to receive their full TANF allocation. In FY 1997, states had to have 25% of their single parents participating in work activities for a minimum of 20 hours per week. By FY 2002, PRWORA increased the severity of sanctions imposed either by lengthening the minimum sanction period or increasing the penalty. Thirty-six states now impose "full-family sanctions" for initial or continued non-compliance with work program mandates (Pavetti & Wemmerus, 1999, p.52 1 ). The primary purpose of sanctions is to send a message that receipt of cash assistance carries with it a set of expectations, especially regarding work. Under TANF, expectations for families with children are quite different than they were under previous efforts to help families with children, creating a new social contract for families in need of government assistance. For example, TANF is intended to provide short-term workoriented assistance to poor families with children. Recipients are required to work once they are job ready and are eligible to receive assistance for only 60 months out of their lifetime. States, however, can opt to impose a shorter time limit. Historically, cash assistance was availabIe to families as long as they met the eligibility criteria. Concerns that welfare had become a "way of life" for a large number of families, however, led to policies to limit the number of months families can receive assistance. Nevertheless, states can exempt up to 20% of their case loads from the time limit requirements and may also use their own funds to provide assistance after 60 months (Pavetti & Wemmerus, 1999, p.521). PRWORA gives states unprecedented authority to decide how they will use their TANF funds. It does, however, provide broad programmatic guidelines that have shaped the design of many state TANF programs. Elements of P R W O U include work first which is the core of most TANF programs. PRWORA is built on a philosophy that any job is a good job and that most program efforts are geared toward helping recipients enter the labor force as quickly as possible (Pavetti & Wemmerus, 1999, p.5 18). The second element of PRWORA is making work pay by increasing rewards and reducing the costs associated with working. The old AFDC program was structured so that recipients could easily be worse off if they worked. To better support recipients efforts to find and maintain employment, all but 10 states have implemented earned income-disregard policies. These policies allows TANF recipients to keep more of their earned income for a longer period of time (Pavetti & Wemmerus, 1999, p.520). Many states have also implemented a number of policies to reduce the cost of working. These policies include providing increased expenditures for child care, addressing transportation barriers, and expanding health insurance coverage. The final element of PRWORA includes more stringent sanctions with the effort of raising the stakes for noncompliance. Sanctions have, therefore, become an increasingly important mechanism for reinforcing the importance of work under PRWORA. Thus, the "passage of PRWORA signaled a break with the past" (Pavetti & Wemmerus, 1999, p.535). Families who could once receive assistance based primarily on their income and assets now find themselves subject to a new social contract based on work. While this shift in no way guarantees that welfare recipients will fare better than they had in the past, proponents of the new legislation believe that it provides an opportunity to greatly improve the lives of poor families with children. In an environment where work is the norm for most mothers, employment provides one of the few options for increased self-sufficiency for poor families. Pavetti and Wemmerus (1999), believe that the ultimate success or failure of welfare reform will rest on the United State's ability to create and sustain a new work-based safety net that adequately responds to the complex labor market realities and life circumstances of families who have previously depended on the welfare system for support. Welfare reform has specified a new set of expectations for poor families with children. "The challenge ahead is to provide families with the resources and services they need to be able to meet those expectations and to modify those expectations when it is in the best interest of families to do so" (Pavetti & Wemrnerus, 1999, p.535). Thus, welfare reform is still very much a work in progress. While much has been accomplished, the creation of a new social contract is far from complete. Critics of PRWORA contend that many of the worst characteristics of the bureaucratic structure created by federal and state governments over the years have been preserved, albeit in an altered form under welfare reform (Lens & Pollack, 1999, p.65). Program Planning Throughout the history of the United States, many social programs have been developed at the federal, state, and local level to address the issue of poverty. For example, there are antipoverty programs providing recipients with affordable housing, food, medical insurance, affordable daycare, and cash assistance. The Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program (CEAP) is one antipoverty program. All social programs come with a set of mandates. For example, CEAP is administered through a contractural system. One of the many requirements for receiving CEAP funding is for organizations who desire to receive monies to administer the program to submit a service delivery plan (SDP) to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA). The SDP describes the methodology to plan, implement, and otherwise deliver allowable client assistance as authorized by the legislation applicable to the CEAP program. After the SDP has been approved, funding is released by TDHCA to the contractural organization. Once funding is received, individual programs can begin to implement services detailed in the SDP including assisting clients with their utility bills. Therefore, formal planning is an extremely important element of social programs addressing poverty. Formal program planning includes setting objectives, planning strategy, developing a philosophy, and establishing policies and procedures. In addition, the development of budgets is included in the formal planning process. Budgets are described by Mikesell (1995) as "simply plans translated into their financial implications." "Budgets can be clear statements of plans, priorities, performance, and cost as well as the basic template for administrative control" (Mikesell, 1995, p.165). Formal planning is beneficial became it creates more effective and efficient organizations and programs. It also makes public administrators better p l m ~ e r by encouraging s experimentation. Formal planning also forces the setting of objectives. reveals and clarifies future opportunities and threats, provides a framework for decision-making throughout an agency, and results in a comprehensive plan which provides a basis for necessary performance. The next chapter focuses on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and one of the antipoverty programs authorized by this act: The Colnprehet~sivz Energy Assistance Program (CEAP). The CEAP Program is described and the conceptual framework for the research is explained and developed. Chapter Four SETTING Introducing The Conceptual Framework Chapter four introduces and develops the research purpose and the conceptual framework for the research. The chapter also describes the research setting. The conceptual framework is a tool that drives the collection of data for the research and thereby provides an overall picture of the research. Common conceptual frameworks include working hypotheses, conceptual categories, practical ideat type, models of decision making, and formal hypotheses (ShieIds, 1996). Conceptual frameworks are classified by the purpose of the research being carried out and are linked to certain types of research questions. The purpose of the empirical portion of the paper is three fold. The first purpose is to examine the problem of poverty. The second purpose is to describe the requirements of a service delivery plan (SDP) for the Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program (CEAP) issued by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA). The third purpose of the paper is to assess CEAP service delivery plans using the requirements set by TDHCA as a standard of comparison. Since the purpose of the research is to determine how closely the service delivery plans submitted by CEAP contractors in Texas are to the requirements issued by TDHCA, the research purpose i s gauging (Shield, 1996). With exploratory research, the research question asks to gauge how close a process or policy is to the ideal or standard. For instance, in this case, the research question is how cIose are CEAP service delivery plans to meeting the requirements established by TDHCA. The type of conceptual framework that best applies to this type of research is the practical ideal type. This is an abstract tool in which standards or points of references are developed. The ideal type is organized by categories or elements that make up the ideal. Once the practical ideal type has been designed, it can be used as a standard by which something (in this case the SDP) can be measured. In this research, the CEAP service delivery plans are reviewed and assessed through comparison with the standard or requirement provided by TDHCA. The development of a practical ideal type is useful in public administration since it provides a point of departure for policy recommendations. In addition, a practical ideal type offers benchmarks with which to understand and improve existing programs and the implementation process of these programs. Before the requirements of the CEAP senlice delivery plan can be understood, it is first important to understand the 1egisIation that funds CEAF. Understanding CEAP is important because the requirements for the service delivery plan are a direct result of Iegislative mandates. The literature review of this paper provides an introduction to the issue of poverty and the importance of program planning in developing effective and efficient programs to combat poverty. The aforementioned constitutes the larger meta-framework or policy framework. The information in chapter four is necessary to understand CEAP as it is described and linked lo the conceptual framework. The Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program (CEAP) Several programs designed to combat poverty are established by The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act (LIHEAP) of 1 98 1 (42 U.S.C. Section 8621 ei seq). The purpose of LIHEAP is to assist low income households, in cases of extreme weather, who are in danger of losing access to energy. One particular program established by LIHEAP is the Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program (CEAP). CEAP is an energy assistance program designed with the goals of: I. assisting households in developing goals for self-sufficiency through case management and a co-payment utility plan; 2. providing relief to those low income elderly and persons with disabilities most vulnerable to the high cost of energy for home heating and cooling; 3. providing one-time assistance in an energy related crisis; and 4. addressing ineficient home heating and cooling appliances through a retrofit. repair, and replacement program. Households whose income do not exceed 125% of the federal poverty income guidelines as published in the Federal Register for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are eligible for the program. To meet the above four goals of the program, CEAP is comprised of four components. The four components include the Energy Crisis Component, the Co-Payment Component, the Elderly and Disabled Assistance Component, and the Heating and Cooling Component. To provide a better understanding of the CEAP program, the next section describes each component. Energy Cri.~is Component The goal of the energy crisis component of CEAP is to provide assistance during a bona fide energy crisis. A bona fide energy crisis exists when extraordinary events or situations resulting from extreme and unanticipated weather conditions and he1 supply shortages have depleted or will deplete household financial resources thus creating an energy burden. Such energy burden must pose a threat to the health or well-being of the household, particularly the elderly. disabled, or very young children. In addition, the assistance provided under this component of CEAP must result in the resolution of the crisis. For example, it is not unusual to see an elderly person with access to an air conditioner not using the unit because of fear of not being able to pay the utility bill. If the person asks for help during a bona fide energy crisis as described in the agency's SDP,the person will receive assistance from the energy crisis component of CEAP. Payments allowable under the energy crisis component of CEAP include temporary shelter not to exceed $3 50.00 per household due to inoperable heating/cooling appliances or because supply of power to the dwelling is disrupted causing temporary evacuation of household members; emergency deliveries of fuel not to exceed $1 50.00 per delivery per household; and purchase of portable heating and cooling units not to exceed $1 000.00 per household. Funds under the heating and cooling component of CEAP can not be used to weatherize dwelling units, for medicine, food, transportation assistance, income assistance, or to pay for penalties or fines assessed to clients. Co-Paymenr Lbmponenr The intent of the co-payment component of CEAP is to achieve energy self-sufficiency in terms of long-term energy affordability for low income households. The program must target clients with the least income and the greatest energy need. For example, a single mother with children employed part-time and unable to pay her electric bill is eligible to receive assistance under the co-payment component of CEAP. Energy affordability as defined in the co-payment component is achieved when a client household has the financial capacity to meet its energy obligations. Organizations administering CEAP programs must enroll CEAP co-payment clients in the program for a minimum of six months. Clients can, however, be terminated at any time between six and twelve months if the goal of energy self-sufficiency has been achieved. Under the co-payment component of CEAP, utility payments are made on behalf of clients to utility vendors on a sliding scale system developed by each organization. For utility bills to be paid. however. each co-payment client is required to have a client service agreement on file to provide direction and focus during the service delivery period. The client service agreement becomes a contract between the organization and the client describing the target problems, goals, and strategies and the roles and tasks of the participants. The agreement is guided by a timeline and serves as a basis for providing accountability to both the client and the organization which is providing service to the client. Elderly and DisaAIed Assistance Componan~ The intent of the elderly and disabled assistance component of CEAP is to provide help to those households most vulnerable to fluctuations in energy cost. Assistance under this component is targeted to those households who are unable to achieve full energy self-sufficiency through other means. For instance, a disabled person who's only income is a monthly disability check and who is not expected to have additio~~al income would be eligible to receive assistance under the elderly and disabled component of CEAP. Elderly and disabled clients may receive benefits to cover up to 100% of four single energy source bills for four billing periods within a contract year under this component of CEAP. Payments must be lin~ited t l ~ e to highest consumption months during which time the client is most vulnerable to energy-related stress. Heating and Cooling C'omponenr The intent of the heating and cooling component of CEAP is to assist clients in achieving energy self-sufficiency by addressing inefficient heating and cooling appliances. For example, clients may have a high energy burden due to inefficient appliances in the home. Jn addition, inordinately high energy bills during the heating or cooling season would indicate the need for an assessn~entof the condition of the appliance in the client's home. The retrofit, repair, andor replacement of a heating or cooling appliance tinder this component of CEAP must be cost efyective and must result in a reduction of energy consumption. Only clients previously receiving services under one or more of the other CEAP components during the same contract year are eligible for services under the heating and cooling component. Eligible services under the heating and cooling component of CEAP include cleaning, tuning and evaluation of systems, repair and replacement of existing components, and replacement of unsafe and inefficient systems. Systems which can be repaired, replaced or retrofited include cooling systems such as central air conditioners. window air conditioners, and evaporative coolers; heating systems, such as centrallwail floor furnaces. space heaters, and wood burning stoves; water heaters; and refrigerators. The maximum alluwable expenditure per household under the heating and cooling component of CEAP is $1 000.00 The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) is the state's lead agency responsible for affordable housing, community development and community assistance programs. In addition, the Department is responsible for the regulation of the state's manufactured housing industry. TDHCA annually administers funding in excess of $500 million. The majority of the Department's funding is derived frommortgage revenue bond financing and refinancing, federal grants, and federal tax credits. TDHCA's main office is in Austin. In addition to the main office there are five field offices, various technical assistance centers, and eight field office for the Manufactured Housing Division located throughout Texas. TDHC A's mission is "to help Texans achieve an improved quality of life through the development of better communities." To achieve this mission, TDHCA' s services include a broad number o f services including low interest mortgage financing, emergency food and shelter, rental subsidy. weatherization, economic development, the provision of basic public infrastructure for sn~all rural communities, and energy assistance. The Department also provides titling, licensing, inspection, and enforcement services in connection with manufactured homes. Therefore, CEAP is a small part of TDHCA. In FFY 94, TDHCA introduced the CEAP Program. Effective September 1 , 1995, TDHCA has been authorized by the Office of the Governor to submit an annual application and plan on behalf of the State of Texas to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to receive funding for programs authorized by the Low Income Home Energy Asssistance Act of 1981, (LIHEAP), including CEAP. The Texas legislature has designated TDHCA as the single state agency to administer this program. TDHCA provided the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services with it's most recent state plan and application in October 1999 (see appendix A). The state plan and application details how TDHCA proposes to design and administer programs authorized by LIHEAP. TDHCA utilizes a network of public and nonprofit agencies throughout Texas to provide CEAP services in 254 counties. As of January, 2000, there were 5 1 agencies in Texas designated as CEAP grantees. In order to become a CEAP grantee in Texas, agencies must submit a service delivery plan to TDHCA for review and approval. Only after the pIan has been approved by TDHCA will a contract with the agency be signed and funding released. Service Delivery Plans (SDP) Umbrella organizations that award federal, state, or local funds must have some method of determining what agencies will be the most worthy recipient of the funds. A good method for determining the worthiness of potential federal, state, or local fund recipients is through the development of a Service Delivery Plan. The Service Delivery Plan or SDP is a tool developed by TDHCA and used by organizations applying for CEAP funding. In the SDP, organizations describe the methodology to plan, implement, and otherwise delivery allowable ctient assistance as authorized by the CEAP contract, applicable assurances/issuances, and the provisions of LIHEAP. Staff responsible for writing the plan may include the agency's executive director or planning director. Through a review process developed by TDHCA service delivery plans submitted to the Department for CEA funding are assessed for required elements. TDHCA gives special consideration in designating local administering agencies to any local public or private nonprofit agency: I ) which was receiving federal funds under LIHEAP or Weatherization Assistance Program under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 or any other provision of law in effect the day before PL 97-35 was enacted on August 13, 198 1; 2) with experience and capacity in operating energy assistance programs or experience in assisting low income individuals in the area to be served; and 3) with the capacity to undertake timely and effective Energy Assistance Programs. Nevertheless, no monies will be released by TDHCA to any agency until an approved SDP is on file with the Department. Thus, the SDP can be an important method by which TDHCA can assure itself of choosing the agencies most worthy of receiving CEAP funding. In addition, the SDP is a good planning instrument for the agencies requesting the funding. Conceptual Framework Summary As stated at the beginning of chapter four, the conceptual framework for this research is the practical ideal type. The practical ideal type is an abstract tool in which standards or guidelines are developed. Once developed, the practical ideal type can be used as a standard by which something can be measured. The Service Delivery Plan (SDP) for the CEAP Program is a process developed by TDHCA to assess plans submitted by agencies requesting CEAP funding (See Appendix B for a copy of SDP provisions for PYOO). The SDP contains the standards or guidelines that agencies must follow when writing their plans. The conceptual framework for this research is based on the required elements contained in the SDP. For the purpose of this research, the SDP is analyzed and descriptive categories and subcategories are developed to describe the required elements of the SDP. 'There are nine main categories and fifty-one subcategories. The main categories that reflect the requirements of the SDP are as follows: Xequired Elements; 3udget Information; 3escription of Organization; Jnmet Need; Available Resources; 'rogram Objectives; lirect Services Support; Lase Management; and 'roject Description. Each of the major categories contain various subcategories that more clearly indicate the information solicited from CEAP pro posers. All service deliveq plans have a set of Required Elements. The Required Elements are forms or documents that must be included in the plan. Required Elements include such items as a Cover Letter, CEAP Application. Table of Contents, and Numbered Pages. In order to insure adequate funding is available to provide services in the most cost effective manner, organizatior~s must have a budget. Therefore, the requirements of the SDP includes Budget Information. Budget Information includes such items as a personnel form, procurement procedures, and description of costs pertaining to fringe benefits, travel, equipment over $500.00, supplies and materials. and cot~tractual services. Organizations that provide services to low-income households must be able to clearly and concisely express how they will address the diverse needs of the poor population they serve. The SDP requirement for CEAP contains several sections that ask proposers to provide information to address particular issues dealing with energy assistance funding. The first section is under the heading of Description of Organization. This section asks the proposer to provide information on their organization. For example, it asks for a description of current services provided by the organization. a description of the application intake process, the number of and demographic profile of households served, and a description of target groups currently served. In addition, to better understand the unique needs of each community, TDHCA requests that proposers provide a description of the citieslcounties served, any organizational restrictions, previous CEAP funding, and how CEAP funds have improved services in the past. A description of new resources accessed during the current year is also required as part of the SDP. This information is an indicator that the organization maximizes its t irnes and efforts by networking with other social service providers in providing services to low-income clients who have a multitude of complex needs. Unmet Need is a category in the SDP where the proposer is required to describe the nature and extent of the unrnet need for energy services for tow-income persons in the service area. The information requested in this section is important because it permits the organization to justify the need for CEAP funding. Subcategories in the section of Unmet Need are directly linked to the formula used by TDHCA to distribute funding. Available Resources is a category in the SDP where the proposer for CEAP funds is required to describe the resources available within and outside their organization that provide assistance to low-income clients. In this section, the proposer is asked to describe the types of senices they provide and the limitations of these services. Information on the number of organizations serving the target group, an inventory of existing energy services, and available energy assistance and other resources in the organization's service area is requested in the Available Resources section of the SDP. Clearly defined program objectives allow an organization to have a clear purpose, to measure results, and to insure accountability for the funding they receive. Therefore, Program Objectives is another category in the SDP requirements. Each CEAP proposer is required to adopt at least one objective and describe what measures the agency will adopt and what data it will track to evaluate the achievement of the objective. Direct Services Support are costs that are not administrative in nature but are used for outreach, targeting and needs assessments to senlice eligible households. CEAP expenditures in this category are limited to 5% of the direct services funds. Because of this limitation, proposers are required to provide information on direct services such as how potential CEAP clients will be identified, how each county of the service area will be served, how historically under-served populations will be served, and how the priority groups under CEAP will be served. In addition, proposers are asked to provide information on how the prioritization schema will be structured, how applications will be taken, the location of outreach ofices in the service area, and how the proposer will work through other entities in the counties to be served. Case Management is a category in the SDP requirements where the proposer is requested to provide an operational summary description of case management and referral activities for CEAP. Expenditures in this category are limited to 6.38% of the total grant allocation. Because of the restriction on expenditures, proposers are required to explain the coordination of services to client households through cooperative agreements, to describe coordination with other energy related programs, and to detail coordination with local energy vendors. Information in the Case Management section of the SDP is important because cooperation among agencies with similar purposes allow for more effective use of CEAP funding. Project Description is the last category of the SDP requirements. This section brings the entire SDP together. The organization has described itself as capable of administering services to low-income households in need of energy assistance and has justified the need for the assistance. The next task for the organization is to describe the program that the proposer intends to fund with the grant. ln this section. the proposer is required to provide an operational summary description of the four CEAP program components based on minimum requirements. Each component m s identify the target group to be served and be accompanied by a timeline. ut In the Project Description section of the SDP, the proposer is asked to identify the target group of individuals needing energy assistance that the proposer intends to assist, to provide energy budgetlcosr management services to co-pay households, to provide energy demand/consumption management services, and to arrange for arrearage reduction, reasonable or reduced payment schedules, or cost reductions through negotiations with energy vendors or other entities. In addition, CEAP proposers are required to provide services to reduce energy demand, consumption, and costs through such activities as making energy-related residential repairs andlor efficiency improvements in coordination with weatherization contractors and in coordination with energy vendors, to provide energy conservation education services, and to describe how payments will be made to energy vendors. All of the above categories comprise the requirements of the CEAP service delivery plan and are the elements that constitute the conceptual framework for this research. The complete conceptual framework is summarized in Table 4.1. The next chapter describes the methodology used to conduct the research. Chapter five also ties the conceptual fianlework to the empirical portion of the research. The statistical techniques used to conduct the research are also detailed. Table 4.1: Summary of The Conceptual Framework Demographic Profile of Households Sewed Requirementso f SDP Requirementsos SDP Requirements of SDP Requirements of SUP Requirements of SDP Requirements of SDP Requirements of SDP Requirements of SDP Target Groups Currently Sewed CitieslCounties Served Organization Resuiction Previous CEAP Funding How CEAP Funds Have Improved Services New Resources Accessed or Developed During Previous Funding Period Number o f New Clients Scrvcd in 1998 Unmet Need Extent of Unmet Need For Energy Services Tor Low-Income Persons in Service Area Requirernenls o f SDP Requirements o f SDP Requirements of SUP Energy Need of Eligible Population Description of Area's Weather Condiliuns Requirements of SDP Requirements of SDP Requirements o f SDP Demographic Info. On Eligible Population IDEAL TYPEICATECORIES SOLIRCE Requiremenb ol'SDP Rcquirernrnts of SOP Requircmtnts o f SDP Rcquirenlcnts o f SDP Requirements of SDP Requirrrnrnts of SDP Requirements of SUP Requirements o f SDP Requirements of SDP Requircments of SDP Available Resources Organ~zat~ons Serving Target Group Invenlnry of'Existing Energ! Services Available Energy Assistance & Other Kesources Program Objectives Adoption o f at least 1 o f 4 primary objectives Dirtrt Strvirts Support Drscribe How Clients WiH Be Iden~ified Dcscribe How Each County o l Scrvice Area Will Be Served Describe How Undesemed Pupulstions Will Be Served Description @f Priorit~zal~on Schema Copy oIPrioritizaliun Form Describe Application Proccss k s c r i k Location of Outreach Offices Lkxribc Coordination With Other Agencies Requirements of SL)P Requirements n l S D P R~qu~remcna SDP ui Requirements o f SDP Requirements of SDP Requirements of SDP Requirements of SDP Requirements of SDP Requirements of SDP Requirements o f SDP Requirements o f SUP Rcquircments orSDP Requlrelnenlj of SDP Requiremenls of SDP Requirements uf SDP Case Manngrment Dcscribe Cooperative Arrangements Describe Coordination W ~ r h Other Energy Related Programs Describe Coordinal~on With Local Encrgy Vendors Projtct Description of Four Program Componenls Identify Target Group Provide Energy BudgeVCost Mgt. Services to Co-Pay Clients Provide Energy Demand Consumption Mgt. Services Arrange for Arrearage Reduction With Energy Vendors Prmidc Semiccs To Reduce Energy Demand Provide Energy Conservation Education Describe Paymenu To Energy Vendors Requirements o f SDP Requirements of SDP Requirements of SDP Timc-l.inc for Activi~irs Cumponent By Chapter Five METHODOLOGY Introduction Chapter five discusses the methodology used to assess the service delivery plans for the Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program submitted to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. If the organization had a current SDP for Fiscal Year 2000 on file with TDHCA, that year's plan was reviewed. If not, the service delivery plan for the previous year, Fiscal Year 2000 was assessed. The required elements for SDPs for Fiscal Year 1999 and 2000 are identical. Content Analysis The methodology utilized for this research is content analysis. Content analysis is described by Babbie (1 995, p.307) as a mode of observation that answers "what is it?" or descriptive type of questions. Content analysis involves creating a serious of categories and subcategories and then methodically counting the number of responses that fall into each category (Zimmermann, 1995). In content analysis, the researcher is required to have a unit of analy sis. The unit of analysis is the subject being studied. The unit of analysis for this research is the service delivery plan submitted for the Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program administered by the Tesas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. To facilitate the assessment process of the comparison of service delivery plans to the required elements, the conceptual framework of ideal categories (required elements) and their subcategories are operationalized into a table (Refer to Table 5.1). A h*m~[ages C'ontent Analysis o f Every research methodology has strengths and weaknesses. Babbie (1 995) describes the advantages and disadvantages of content analysis. The greatest advantage of content analysis according to Babbie (1995) is its economy in terms of both time and money. For example, there is no requirement for a large research staff, and no special equipment is needed when using content analysis. "As long as you have access to the material to be coded, you can undertake content analysis" (Babbie, 1995, p.3 18). For example, in this study the only materials required were the SDP's. The plans were reviewed in hvo days by one person using a coding sheet. Safety is another advantage of content analysis mentioned by Babbie ( 1995). For instance, when using content analysis, it is usually easier to repeat a portion of the study due to error than when using other research methods such as field research. Another strength of content analysis as a research methodology is that it allows the researcher to study processes occurring over long periods of time. Babbie (1 995) a1so contends that content analysis has the advantage of being unobtrusive. "Because the novels have already been written, the paintings already painted, the speeches already presented, content analysis can have no effect on them" (Babbie, 1995, p.3 1 8). Disad~~aniges Content Analysis o f As with any research methodology, there are also disadvantages to using content analysis. One weakness of using content analysis, according to Babbie (1 995) is that it is limited to the examination of recorded communications. The communication may be oral, written, or graphic. I t must, however, be recorded in some nlanner to allow analysis. In this case, the examination was limited to SDPs on file with TDHCA the days of the review. Another weakness of content analysis is that the coding procedure developed by the researcher may not be the most appropriate to use for the research being conducted. This presents problems of validity, because the most valid measure may have been overlooked in the coding process due to an inappropriate coding procedure. For example, another person reviewing the SDPs using the same coding sheet may not obtain the same results. Unit o Analysis For Research f For the purpose of this research, forty-four out of a total of fifty-one service delivery plans submitted by organizations within the State of Texas for the Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program were analyzed and compared with the descriptive categories to determine if they contain the required elements established by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. Twenty service delivery plans for Program Year 2000 and twenty-four plans for Program Year 1999 were analyzed. Seven agencies had no Program Year 1999 or Program Year 2000 service delivery plan on file with the Department. According to Babbie ( 1 993), in order to have a fairly representative sample of the "population." a minimum of 30 subjects must be iued. The sampling of forty-four service delivery plans ensures adequate representation of the population. Thus, this sample is large enough to make statistical generalizations about the service delivery plans. Sample For Research As mentioned previously, there are fifty-one CEAP grantees in the State of Texas. Each grantee is required to have an approved service delivery plan filed with TDHCA in order for a contract to be signed and funding to be released. However, the sampling frame for this research consists of only forty-four service delivery plans because seven agencies did not have a service delivery plan on file on the days this researcher reviewed the plans at the office of TDHCA. Stafisrics For Research Each service delivery plan is analyzed and compared to the categories of the practical ideal type to determine if it contains the elements of the ideal type. A list provided by TDHCA naming all CEAP grantees is used to check off each plan as it is reviewed and to ensure that no organization is missed in the assessment process. A SDP will either contain all of the element, some of it, or none of it. Descriptive statistics such as mode, percentages or frequencies are used. Please refer to Appendix C for a complete listing of the CEAP grantees in Texas as of January, 2000. Once all of the service delivery plans have been analyzed, the statistics should provide results indicating whether or not the plans submitted to and approved by TDHCA contained all of the elements of the SDP. If the results indicate that a majority of the service delivery plans did not meet the criteria established by TDHCA, then recommendations to improve the review process will be offered. Chapter Six RESULTS Introduction The purpose of chapter six is to review the findings from the analysis of the service delivery plans submitted for the Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program in the State of Texas. The results are based on an assessment of forty-four service delivery plans and compared to the practical ideal type through the use of a coding sheet derived from the requirements established by TDHCA for the CEAF Program. Please refer to Appendix D for a complete summary of responses. The results of the analysis are identified in summary tables for each descriptive category and its subcategories. The findings for each subcategory are shown as a percentage of the responses for that subcategory. The findings are based on whether or not a SDP contained either ALL, SOME, or NONE of the information required. ALL indicates that the SDP contained all of the necessary information required by a particular category; SOME indicates that a SDP contained on1y partial information required by a category; and NONE indicates that SDP contained no information addressing a category. Required Elements The results of the assessment indicate that a majority of the CEAP SDPs submitted to TDHCA contained all of the necessary information required by each subcategory under Required Elements. It is interesting to note that although one of the Required Elements was a form that was actually provided in the application process to organizations, six agencies failed to include the form in the completed SDP submitted to TDHCA for approval. In addition, seven agencies failed to Collow simple instructions such as including a cover letter with the SDP. Please refer to Table 6.1 for a summary of findings Table 6.1 REQUIRED ELEMENTS: Summary of Findings 1 Required Elements 1 ALL l SOME 1 NONE Cover Letter 1 CEAP Atl~lication Table of Contents Numbered Paaes 84 O h 86% 86% ------------*------------- .......................... -----------------------*----*-----*------*--------- 16% 14 'In 14% 93% 7% Budget Information The findings under the category of Budget Information begin to indicate a higher percentage of organizations that fail to provide required information. As can be seen below in Table 6.2, many organizations simply did not provide the information requested. It is important to note however, that the administration of the CEAP Program in many instances has to be supported by other program funds. For example, many organizations stated in their SDPs that Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) funds provide the majority of administrative support for the CEAP Program. For instance, forty organizations do not purchase equipment over $500.00 with CEAP funding and eighteen agencies do not purchase any supplies or materials with CEAP funding. Table 6.2 BUDGET INFORMATION: Summary of Findings Budget Information ALL SOME NONE .......................... Personnel Form - D 73% 27% 77% 5% Description of 18% Fringes-- Description of Travel Equipment Over 500 Supplies & Materials Contractural Services Procurement Proced. 73% 2% 2% 25% 91% 41 % 7% 59 O h 39% .......................... 2O h 5% 59% 27% 68 *A Program Narrative Description of Organization Description of the Organization is part of the narrative for the SDP and is limited to a - maximum of ten pages. The information in this section of the SDP provides TDHCA with an overview of the organization requesting CEAP funding. For example, the types of services currently offered by the organization, the number of households served, and the target groups identified by the organization as receiving priority for services can be found in the narrative. A review of the narratives submitted as part of the SDP indicates that many organizations that apply for CEAP funding are multipurpose, nonprofit organizations that also receive funding for a multitude of federal and state programs and who have been in business for many years. Table 6.3 PROGRAR NARRATIVE - DESCRIPTION OF ORGANIZATION: Summary of Findings I Demo. Profile of House. I Target Group Organization Restriction Previous CEAP Funding * I Unmet Need The Unrnet Need category of the SDP is also part of the narrative and consists of information that is pertinent to the community in which the proposer resides. This information CEAP Improved Services New Resources Accessed provides TDHCA with an idea of the extent of unrnet energy service needs in the community, the number of low-income persons in the service area, demographic information on the eligible population, and a description of the area's weather. This information is critical to justify that funding for energy assistance is needed in a particular service area. A majority of the SDPs submitted and approved by TDHCA addressed the requirements of the subcategories in this section. There are a few subcategories, however, that were not addressed fully or at all. For example, four organizations failed to completely address the extent of unmet energy service needs in the communities they propose to serve, and 20% of the organizations only partially specified the energy need of the eligible population in their individual service area. Please refer to Table 6.4 for an overall summary of responses to Unmet Need. Table 6.4 UNMET NEED: Summary of Findings ALL SOME 66% 25% 95% 5% Unmet Need Extent of Energy Need # of Low Income in Area I NONE 9% ---*---------------*---*-- Energy Need of Pop. Descrip. Of Weather Demo. On Elitgible Pop. Available Resources The Available Resources category is also part of the narrative of the SDP and provides TDHCA with an inventory of existing organizations that serve Iow-income individuals including those programs that provide energy assistance with funds other than CEAP. Again, a majority of the SDPs reviewed addressed the requirements of the subcategories included in this section. Ten organizations however, failed to provide an inventory of existing energy services, and eight organizations only partially addressed organizations serving the target group identified by their particular agency. Please refer to Table 6.5 for an overall summary of responses to Available Resources. Table 6.5 AVAILABLE RESOURCES: Summary of Findings ALL SOME NONE Available Reources Org. Serving Target 73% 18% 9% Existing Energy 64% 14% 23% Sewices .. Avail. Energy Assistance 68 % 16 O/O 16% Program Objectives The Program Objectives category of the SDP is also part of the narrative and requires organizations to implement one of four primary objectives adopted by TDHCA in the administration and design of the CEAP Program. Organizations must also describe in the SDP what measures they will adopt and what data they will track to evaluate the achievement of the objective. The four objectives that organizations may choose from include: 1. To target energy assistance to low income households with the highest home energy needs, taking into account both energy burden and vulnerable household members; 2. To increase energy affordability while protecting health and safety for CEAP recipient households; 3. To increase efficiency of energy usage while protecting health and safety of low-income households; and 4. To act as an advocate for low-income households with the community, social service providers and energy providers. The results in Table 6.6 indicate that the majority of agencies adopted one of the four objectives. However, six organizations failed to follow instructions. In addition, a review of the SDPs indicate hat although the majority of the organizations chose an objective, organizations failed to describe what measures they would adopt and what data they would track to evaluate the achievement of the objective. In addition, although agencies are required to only adopt one of the four objectives, 27% of the organizations adopted multiple objectives. Twenty-four organizations chose to adopt objective one: fifteen chose objective two: eight organizations chose objective three; and twelve organizations chose to implement objective four. Table 6.6 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES: Summary of Findings NONE Program Objectives ALL SOME ......................... Adopt. Of 1 of 4 Object. 86% 14% N=44 Direct Service Support The category of Direct Service Support is also part of the SDP narrative and requests information on the direct operation of the CEAP Program. For instance. information on how potential clients will be identified and how clients will be served is included in this section of the narrative. In addition, how the CEAP priority groups will be sewed must also be explained. The priority groups for the CEAP Program include the elderly, disabled, and children under six. Coordination with other agencies and a description of the application process is also included under Direct Service Support. Although the majority of agencies addressed the requirements of the subcategories included in the Direct Services Support section, there are a number of categories that were not addressed fully or at all. For example, half of the organizations failed to describe the prioritization schema used by their agency to prioritize services. Thr prioritization schema is a vital instrument since rarely does funding allow organizations to serve all applicants requesting assistance. Thirty-seven organizations did, however, include a copy of the prioritization form in the SDP. This practice indicates that although the majority of organizations failed to provide a description of the prioritization schema, most organizations do have such a schema since a form has been developed. See Table 6.7 for an overall summary of responses to Direct Services Support. Table 6.7 DIRECT SERVICES SUPPORT: Summary of Findings Direct Services Supp. ALL Client Identification 91 % How Counties Sewed SOME 7% NONE 2O h How Underserved. Pop. How CEAP Group Sew. 68% Describe Prioritization 25% Copy of Form 84% Application Process 34% Outreach Offices 64% Coord. With Agencies 43% 75% 70% 16% 25% 9O h 5O h 9O h 50% 16% 23% 25% .......................... 20% 9% 39% 45% 27% 18% Case Management The category of Case Management is the second to the last part of the narrative for the SDP and requests information on how case management services will be delivered as part of the CEAP Program. Unfortunately, a large number of organizations failed to provide the information required in the subcategories under Case Management. For example, sixteen agencies did not include information pertaining to coordination with energy related programs, and twelve agencies failed to describe coordination with local energy vendors. See Table 6.8 for a summary of responses to Case Management. Table 6.8 CASE MANAGEMENT: Summary of Findings Case Management Cooperative Agreements Coord. With Energy Prog. ALL 20% 27% I SOME 45% NONE 34Yo 36 O o / 27% 36% 36% Coord. With Local Ven. 36% Project Description of Four Program Components The Project Description of the Four Program Components is the final part of the narrative. This section presents the details of how the agency proposes to design and implement the CEAP program. A review of the SDPs for forty-four CEAP grantees in Texas reveals a wide variety of programs designs. The results in Table 6.9 indicate a higher percentage of ALL responses. The subcategory of "Time-Line For Activities By Component" however, revealed a high number of NONE responses (75%). Table 6.9 PROJECT DESCRlPTION OF FOUR PROGRAM COMPONENTS: Summary of Findings p p SOME .......................... NONE .......................... .......................... Provide Mgt. Services Arrange Arrearage Provide Energy Conser. ------------------*----------*--------------------* 98% 50% Describe Pay. To Time-Line For 98% 41 O h 18% 2% 27% 2O h 23% ---------------*---*--*--- 14% 7% 45% 75% As can be seen by the results of the analysis, there are some subcategories that consistently reflected higher numbers of SOME or NONE categories. The fol towing chapter provides a summary of the results, conclusions from the findings, and recommendations for overall improvement of the SDP review process. Chapter Seven CONCLUSION Chapter seven summarizes the findings of the research and presents recommendations that address the findings. The purpose of this research was three fold. The first purpose was to examine the problem of poverty. The second purpose was to describe the requirements of a service delivery plan (SDP) for the Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program (CEAP). The third purpose was to assess CEAP service delivery plans using the requirements developed by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) as a standard of comparison. The questions of how closely the SDPs reflect the reality of each particular agency or how well each organization is at implementing the plans and meeting the energy needs of the poor is outside the scope of this project. The project is limited sotely to assessing a document, the SDP, that connects two agencies in the process of delivering services to the poor. The larger and more interesting question is beyond the scope of this applied research project. On the other hand, communication and documentation between hnding organizations is important. Documents such as the SDP are clearly within the scope of public administration. Summary of Findings The research was intended to understand or gauge how close the CEAP service delivery plans were to meeting the requirements established by TDHCA when compared to the practical ideal type. The results of the research indicate that no agency completely addressed all the requirements of a SDP. There were however, some categories that were more fully addressed that others. Those include the categories of required elements, descriptinr~qf organixtiun, unmet need, program objectives, direct services supporr, and a project description of the four program components. The most poorly addressed categories of the SDP appear to be the categories of rose management and budget information. It appears that much of the budget information is lac king from the SDPs because most organizations rely on funding outside of CEAP to support the program. Therefore, many of the subcategories under budget information are not applicable since those costs are supported by other funding sources. The category of Case Management is an important one in regard to the purpose of the CEAP program. An organization cannot provide a suitable plan to address the needs of the poor and to transition them out of poverty without case management. Therefore, considering the importance of case management in this process, it is surprising that the results indicate so many SDPs responding as either SOME or NONE under the Case Management category. Recommendations Improvements can be made to increase the quality of CEAP SDPs submitted to TDHCA. In addition, a better system for reviewing these plans can be implemented by TDHCA. Recommendations to facilitate these improvements include the following: 1. TDHCA should offer an annual CEAP technical assistance workshop before SDPs are due. The Department already offers such workshops for other programs it administers such as the Emergncy Shelter Grants Program. At the technical assistance workshops, applicant organizations are provided with instructions for applying for the grant and are walked through each section of the instructions. Applicant's questions are then answered in regards to rhe material presented in the instructions. The kind of assistance necessary to improve the overall quality and responsiveness of the SDPs can be provided at these technical assistance workshops. 2. Since developing a SDP is very similar to writing a grant, TDHCA should sponsor grant-writing workshops. Providing grant-writing training strengthens and sharpens an organization's writing abilities which then results in more coherent and better thought out plans. 3. Considering the high percentage of organizations not meeting the requirements of case management, TDHCA should hold frequent workshops on how to plan and implement an effective case management system at the local level. 4. TDHCA should develop a form for all persons who review SDPs to use. The use of such a form will insure that the review process is more consistent than it currently is. In addition, a form containing all the required elements will insure that incomplete SDPs are not approved by the Department. The use of this form should be carefully reviewed with TDHCA employees at a technical assistance workshop. 5. TDHCA should carefully review the requirements of the SDP. It may be that some categories are not applicable to many funding organizations and can thus be eliminated. As stated at the beginning of chapter seven, the analysis was limited solely to assessing the requirements of the SDP. How well each agency was at meeting the energy needs of the poor and how well the pIans were implemented was beyond the scope of this applied research project. Future research could look more closely at the overall compliance rate of organizations. Conclusion The research provided a picture of how closely CEAP service delivery plans submitted to TDHCA were to the practical ideal type. What was revealed is that none of the 44 plans reviewed for this research contained all the required elements. For the most part. however, the service delivery plans met most of the requirements promulgated by TDHCA with the exception of case management. Ironically, case management is the most vital part of the CEAP program. Agencies are unable to effectively and efficiently meet the needs of the poor and transition them out of poverty without a strong and well thought out case management system in place. Case management workshops sponsored by TDHCA stressing how to plan and implement an effective case management system at the Iocal level is recommended. In addition, a recommendation for grant-wrjtjng training may result in more coherent and better thought out plans. TDHCA should also develop a form for all persons who review SDPs to use. The use of such a form will only insure that the review process is more consistent than it currently is. This practice will reduce the risk of TDHCA approving SDPs and releasing funding to organizations that fail to meet requirements. Finally, TDHCA should carehlly review the requirements of the SDP. It may be that some categories are not applicable to many funding organizations and call thus be eliminated from the requirements. The research conducted in this paper should be considered by the reader to be preliminary in nature. The practical ideal type is concerned with describing "what is it?" or "what does it look like?" This applied research project attempted to answer that question in regards to service delivery plans submitted to TDHCA for the CEAP program. Recommendations for future research could look more closely at the overall compliance rate of organizations administering the CEAP program. For example, are organizations actually implementing the ideas and concepts expressed in the SDPs thus making the plans a working document? Or are organizations simply writing SDPs to meet a requirement for funding'? REFERENCES Assensoh, Y. ( 1 995, September). Myths About Raw and the Underckrss: Concentrated Poveriy and " Underclass " Behaviors. Urban Affairs Review. 3 1( 11,3- 19. Babbie, E. ( 1 995). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Blackburn, C. (199 1). Poverfy and Health: Working W t Families. Philadelphia: Open ih University Press. Blank, R. (1997). It Takes a Nation: A New Agenda For Fighting Poverty. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Browning, R.( 1 996 j. Politics and Social Welfare in the United States. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press. Caputo, R. ( 1 997, JanuarylFebruary). Family Poverty and Public Dependency. Families in Societv, 13-25. Chafel, J . (1997, June). Societal Images ofpoverty: ChildandAdult Beliefs. Youth and Society. 28141,432-463. Cheal, D. (1996). New Poverty: Families in Postmodern Sociew. Westpoint, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, Inc. Coukton, C. (1 996, September). Poverfy, Work, und Community: A Research Agenda For An Era of Diminishing Federal Responsibility, Social Work, 4 1(51,509-5 19. Doyal, L., & Gough, I.(1 991). A Theory of Human Need. New York: The Guilford Press. Duncan. G.. & Yeung, W., & Brooks-Gunn, J., & Smith, J. (1998, June). How Much Does C'hildhaod Poverty Affect the Life Chances of Children? American Socioloaical Review, 63,406-423. Feldstein, M. ( 1999, Fall). Reducing Poverty, Not Inequality. The Public Interest, 3 I -4 1. Gilens, M. ( 1 996). Race and Poverty in America: Public Misperceptions and the Americun News Media. Public Opinion Ouarterlv. 60,5 15-54 1. Gillhani, B., & Tanner, G., & Cheyne, B. (1 998). Unemployment Rates, Single Pcrrenr Drnsily and Indices o C'hild Poverty: Their Relationship To Differen[ Categories of Child Abuse f and Neglect. Child Abuse and Neglect, 2212),79-90. Gittleman, M. (1 999, April). The Limits on Weyure Receipt. Contemporan' Economic Policy, 17(2), 1 99-209. Hunt, M. (1 996, September). The h~dividrtul Society, or Both? A Comparison of Black, Lutino, and White Beliefs Ahouf the Cuuses of'Poverry. Social Forces, 75( l), 293-322. Jensen, L., & McLaughl in, D. ( 1997). The Escape From Poverty Among Rural and Urban Elders. The Gerontoloaist. 37141,462-474. Jorgenson, D. ( 1998, Winter). Did l f i Lose the War an Puverty? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12( 1), 79-96. Kennedy, J. ( 1 987, June). Public Support for Resicitlritic~lEnergy Assistance. Sociologv and Social Research, 7 1.308-3 1 1 . King, D., & Wickham-Jones, M. (1999). From Clinton to Blair: The Democratic (Party) Origins o WeEfare 10 Work The Political Ouarterl~, f 63-74. Klemmack. D. ( 1983). Public Support For Government Energy Assistance Payments to Older Persons. The Gerontologist, 23(3), 307-3 12. Lens, V., & Pollack, D. ( 1 999). Welfare Reform: Back to the Future! Administration in Social Work, 23(21,61-77. Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Act, 42 U.S .C. Sec. 862 1 et seq. Meares, P., & Robert, E. (1 995, July). Puhlic Assistance as Family Policy: Closing OfS0p1ion.r For Poor Families. Social Work. 40(4'3,559-565. Meyer, J. (1 999, Summer). Assessing Welfare Reform: Work Pays. The Public Interest, 113-120. Pavetti, L., & Wemmerus. N . (1 999, Fall). From a Jf'clfort. Check to a Paycheck: Creating a New Social Conrraci. Journal of Labor Research. 20(4), 5 17-537. Pereira, J., & Ryzjn, G. ( 1999). llttderstnrrdit~gPuhlic Support For Time Limits und Other Welfare Reforms. Policy Studies Journal, 26(3 1,398-4 18. Pressman, S. (1 988, MarchlApril). The Fclminizution of Poverfy: Causes and Remedies. Challenge. 3 1 . 57-6 1 Rank, M., & Hirschl, T. (1 999). The Likelihood of Poverty Across the American Adult Live Span. Social Work. 4 4 3 1,20 1-2 14. Ravallion, M. (1 996, September). Issues in Measuring ~rnd Modeling Poverfy. The Economic Journal, 106,1328- 1343. Schiller, B. (1999, April). Slate WeEfare-ReformImpacts: L'ontenr nt7J Enforcement EfSects. Contern~orarv Economic Policy, 17(21,2 10-222. Schultz, T. (1993). The Economics of Being Poor. Cambridge. Massachusetts: Blacku~eII Publishers. Shields, P.M. (1998). Pragmatism us Philosophy of Science. Research In Public Administration. 4. 195-225. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, Energy Assistance Section ( I 999). 2000 CEAP Service Delivery Plan. Austin, Texas: Author. Texas Government Code, Sections 2305.03 5 & 2306.097. Triest, R. (1 998, Winter). Has Poverty Gotten Worse.? Journal of Econon~ic Perspectives, 12(11,97-114. Waitzman, N., & Smith, K. (1998, June). Phantom of the Arecr: Po~~tlrry-Area Residence and Mortulify in f h United States. American Journal of Public Health. 88(6), 973-976. ~ Wilson, G. (1 996). Toward a Revised Framework For Examining Beliefs Abouf the Causes o Poverty. The Sociological Quarterly, 37131,4 13-428. f Wilson. W. ( 1 999. May). When Work Disuppeurs: New Implicarions For Race and Urban Povert), in /he Glohnl EL-onomy. Ethic and Racial Studies, 22(31,489-499. Zimmerman. D.E. and Muraski, M . L . (1995). The Elements of Information Gathering. Phoenix. AZ: Oryx Press. APPENDIX A State of Texas Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program ApplicationtState Plan for Federal Fiscal Year 2000 APPENDIX C List of CEAP Service Delivery Plans Reviewed For Applied Research Project Name of Or~anization 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Aspermont Small Business Development Center, Inc. Aspermont, Texas Bee Community Action Agency Beeville, Texas Bexar County Housing and Human Services San Antonio, Texas Big Bend Community Action Committee, Inc. Marfa, Texas Brazos Valley Communjty Action Agency Bryan, Texas Caprock Community Action Association, Inc. Crosbyton, Texas Central Texas Opportunities, lnc. Coleman, Texas Combined Community Action, Inc. Srnithville, Texas Community Action Committee of Victoria Victoria, Texas Community Action Council of South Texas Rio Grande City, Texas 11. Community Action, Inc. Hays, Caldwell & Blanco Counties 12. 13. 14. 15 . 16. S a n Marcos, Texas Community Action Program, Inc. Abilene, Texas Community Council of Cass, Marion & Morris Counties, Inc. Linden, Texas Community Council of Reeves County Pecos, Texas Community Council of Southwest Texas, Tnc. Uvalde, Texas Community Services Agency of Dimmit, LaSalle, & Maverick Counties Camzo Springs, Texas 13. Community Services, lnc. Corsicans, Texas 1 8. Dallas County Department of Health & Human Services 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Dallas, Texas Economic Action Committee of The Gulf Coast Bay City, Texas Economic Opportunities Advancement Corporation of Planning Region X I Waco, Texas Fort Worth, City of, Park Recreation and Community Services Department Forth Worth, Texas Galveston County Community Action Council, Inc. Galveston, Texas Hidalgo County Community Services Agcncy Edjnburg, Texas Hill Country Community Action Association, Inc. San Saba, Texas Klcberg County Human Services Kingsville, Texas Montgomery County Erncrgency Assistance, Inc. Conroe, Texas 27. Northeast Texas Opportunities, Inc. Mount Vernon, Texas 28. Nueces County Conununity Action Agency Corpus Christi, Texas 29. Palo Pinto Conlrnunity Service Corporation Minerat Wells, Texas 30. Panhandle Community Services Amarillo, Texas 3 1. Pews County Community Action Agency Fort Stockton, Texas 32. People for Progress, Inc. Sweetwater, Texas 33. Programs for Human Services, Inc. Orange, Texas 34. San Angelo and Tom Green County Health Department San Angelo, Texas 35. Senior Citizens Services of Texarkana, Inc. Texarkana, Texas 36. Sheltering Arms, Inc. Houston, Texas 37. South Plains Community Action Association, Inc. Levelland, Texas 3 8. Texoma Council of Governments Sherman, Texas 39. Tom Green County Community Action Council San Angelo, Texas 40. Travis County Human Services Department Austin, Texas 4 1. Tri-County Community Action Agency Center, Texas 42. Webb County Community Action Agency Laredo, Texas 43. West Texas Opportunities, Inc. Larnesa, Texas 44. Williamson-Burnet County Opportunities, Inc. Georgetown, Texas APPENDIX D Summary Sheet for CEAP Service Delivery Plans Contains All Contains Nooc Service Deliver). Plan Htading Contains Some 11 kscription of Priorithtiin Schcma I1 25% 25% 22 7 20% 50% 16% 45% 27% Copy of Prioritization Form 37 84% 0 9 Describe Application Pmcess IS 34% 20 12 Describe Lacarion of Ouucach Offlct~ 2b 64% 4 9% 39% 8 18% Describe Coordination With Agencies 19 43% 17 Case Managcmnt Describe Cooperative Apcments 12 16 9 20 20% 45% 15 16 12 34% Describe Coordinalion With Encrgy Rclated Programs 36% 16 27% 36% , scribe Coordination Wilh Lwal Entrgy Vendors 36'1~ -16 36% 27% Pmjc~l Dacription of Four Pragram Cowyonen& 44 44 43 IdmtiQ Targci Gmup 100% 100% 0 0 Provide E c Budgtt,Cost Mgt. to CQ-Pay Cticnts nw o t o 2% 27% Provide Energy Demand Consumption Mgt. Services 98% 0 1 0 23% M a n g e for Arrearage Reduction With Energy Vendors 12 22 50% 98% 1 6 43 Prnvidt Energy Conservation Ed. I8 41% 18% 2% 14% 0 20 Describe Pavemen6 To Vcndoo 45% Tirnc-Linc for Activities By Component 8 3 7% 33 75% APPENDIX E Comparison of Median Incomes Poverty Rates for Counties in Texas Comparison ofMedian Incomes Poverty,Rates for Counties COUNTY Andemon S36,200* .30% of median : 50% of median !60%ot median i 30% of median i ! AMFl Famlly of 4 10,850 18,100 21,720 100%Pwerty Rate 16,700 , 16,700 16,700 i I 1 j ! ; 1 125% Pwerty Rate 20,875 20.875 20,875 ! I ; ; AMF11100% 65% 108% 130% AMFlll25% 52% 87% 104% Andrewr . -. Amnsas 535,300' i 130%.of median 150% of median i6O%of median : 1 i 1 i I 10,600 17,650 21,180 i I 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16.700 1 20,875 20.875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20.875 20,875 ! i 63% 106% 127% 71% 118% t41% -- I 51% 85% 101% 57% 94% 1133'0 Amtrong $39,300' --,Atascosa 132,400' 130% of median i50% of median !60%ofmedian :30% of median i 50% of median i60%0f median 130% of median :50% of median 6O%of median 30% of median .50% of median :60%0f median 30% of median .50% of median !GO%ofmedian I I f 1,800 19.650 23,580 10,150 16,950 20,340 / 1 I 1 - .- I 1 -. 1 I 1 ' 16,700 16,700 16,700 ! 20,875 20,875 1 i . j 1 I I 61% 101% 122% 66% ltO% 132% / i 49% 81% 97% Austln $44,600' i , 11,050 18,400 22,080 ?0,150 16,950 20,340 11,050 18,400 22,080 11,050 18,400 22,080 10.150 16,950 20,340 i ! 16,700 16.700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 20.875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 ' i . 1 i -2%. . 88% 106% 49% 97% ! Baitey - . --.- $24.200' ,- ! 1 , : . 1 , 1 I I ElYo -. 101% 122% 87%- Bandera - -- -.- $37,400' -- ---- 1 ; I 16,700 16,700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16,700 -I ; 20,B75 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 _- : 1 : / 110% 132% 66% 110% 132% a% . - . .. - I . 53% 88% 106% 53% Baylor $30,100R -. -. .30%of median '509gofmedian '60%of median ' ; I 1 i 1 1 . lo65.I 88% - $Si 3 . . .,- - , .. . . Bell - . . . Bee .30% of median 50% of median 60%of median j ' 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16.700 x 1 ' : 20.875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20.875 20,875 20.875 61% 101% -122% 70% 117% 140% 75% 125% 151% 49% 81% 97% 56% 7 - . -.- - W???Y - _ . . .. . - -- 30% of median 50% of median GO'%of median . - f 1.700 19,500 23,400 12,550 20.950 25,140 , - I . , , ! 1 1 93% I 112% -. , -.. Bexar -. . . $41,900' - 30% of median ,50%of median 60%of median -- I 1 ' ! I ; 60% I ' ' . I 100% 120% B'anco $33,600' -- 30% of median ! 20.875 61% 49% I 16,950 ' 16.700 20,875 ; 101% I 81% . ,5094 of median 60%of median 20,340 16.700 . 20,875 I 122% 97% I : Bwden $40,400' ,3O%ofmedian '50% of median .60%of m d i n 130% of median ,50% of median 60%of median I 11,050 18.400 22,080 10.600 17,700 21,240 1 -. -. . - . - - -. 16.700 16,700 16,700 , , i i ! 20.875 20,875 20,875 4 . ! I 66% 110% 132% 63% 106% 127% I 53% 88% 106% 51% Bosque $35,400* ' - I 16,700 16,700 16.700 20.875 20,875 20,875 85% 102% Comparison of Median Incomes Poverty Rates for Counties COUNTY Bowie $38,100' ! AMFl Fnmlly of 4 I ! . I 100% Poverty Rate i 125% Poverty Rate I AMFIIlOO% AMFVl25.h :30% o median f ! 50% of med~an 160%of median '30% ol median ! 50% of median i60%of median ' . 69% - 55% 19,050 22,860 16,300 27,200 32,640 12,700 21,200 25,440 10.150 16,950 .._. 20,340 t0.150 16,950 20,340 10,150 16.950 20.340 ! 1 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16.700 . , 20.875 20,875 20,875 20.875 20,875 , 114% 137% 91$6 110% 78% 130% 156% Brarorla $54,400' ' 1 ' 1 . j / ' ' 1 ' 98% 163% 195% Bmor $42,400' 130% of median 150% of median 6O%of median 30% of median 150% of median !6O%of median /30% of medin 150% of m a i n i60%0f median !30% of median 1 ; i I 16.7W 16,700 16,700 1 I 20,875 20.875 20.875 20,875 20.875 20,875 20,875 76% t 27% 152% I I I 61% 102% 122% I Brwrtar ! I I 1 . S071' 3,L0 -Brlrcoe S29,l OP' i 16.700 16,700 . 16,700 16,700 16.700 16.700 / , i I I ! I ! 61% 101% 122% 61% 101% 122% -. - 49% 81% 97% 49% 81% 97% I I j I : , i I i I 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 , I - Brooks 522,500* 150% of medlan !60%ofmedian 30% of median 50% 01 median i60%ol median .- .. I ; i : ! i I 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 - ! I 61$6 lo1% 122% I . 49% 81% 97% .. .. ! I , Brown $34,4w Burle_son s35,70d'- ' 10,300 17,200 20,640 - , 01 17,850 21,420 - : -- i . . 1 : 62% 103% 124% 64% 107% - 49% 82% 99% 51 Y o 86% 103% - -- . . . - . . .. . - . - -. .- - . - -- 30% of median 50% of median 6O%of median i ; I -.--m------.-.-.----,----- 16,700 16.7& 16,700 16,700 16.700 16.700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700. ., . 16,700 16,700 , , 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 1 1 : 128% 66% I . --. Burnet -. - - -. . -- - . . - $36,500' 50% -..-.- of median 60%of median - -- .- ,30%of median , ' 10,950 18,250 21,900 : : , , 20.875 20.875 . - 109% . . 131% - 52%. . . .. . 87% - -i05% 53% 108% - Calhoun - - - - .. . - 30% of median : 50% of median 11,050 ' . 20,075 20.875 1 , 66% 1to% 13294 66% tiO% 132% -.. .I .!!??lO?~. -. . -_ 6O%of median 18,400 22,080 -, 20,875 20,875 20,875 20.875 - , ..20.875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 1 , 88% Callaha* _ . $37,600. - .30% of median ' 50% of median 60%of-median . -. . -. --.. . I f ,050 18,400 22,080 10,150 20,340 ''a25o - - - . .-- . . . - -. . - 53% 88% 106% . 49% 81% 97% -- - dineron . _. . 30% .- of median .50% of - median 60%d median .. . , i2s*sDE . 16,950 16.700 16,700 16,700 16,700 I : , -61% 101% 122% -- - I - - -- - - -. . .. . -. . 18.7SCI -. . 67% 112% 135% 66% - Camp, . 537.500* .. . .. ---- .. - 30% of median 50% of median ,. 60%of median .- - - - - . .. 54% 90% 108% 22.m 71.050 16.400 22,080 1 C-n-. %'00' . -- - t I . - .- 30% of median 16,700 16,700 16,700 ' 20,875 , _ -- -. . .- ---- - 50% of median 60%of median . - - --- - 20,875 20,875 ' I 110% 132% 61% 102% t 23% ! I 53% 88% 106% 49% Cur $34,100' - ! , .- 30% of median 50%oofmedin .60%of median 30% of median 10,250 17,050 20.460 ] 1 I , 16,700 16,700 16,100 16,700 I 20.875 20,875 20.875 20,875 ! I I I ! I ' 82% 98% , Castro 10,150 : 61% 49% Comparison of Median Incomes Poverty Rates for Counties - COUNTY 150% of rned~an 16O%of median i30% of median ;50%of rnedlan 160%dmedian : , ! I AMFl Farnib o f 4 16,950 20,340 to,PM1 t8,150 21.780 i I 400% Puworty 16,700 16.700 1 Rate - 1 j 325%R;tem - ; I I ? I 20,875 20,875 AMFlilOOK 101% ' AMFVf25% - -- - 122% 65% tOQ% 130% :: : ! 1 i ; 1 16.700 16,700 16.700 1 ] i 20,875 ; 20,875 1 20.875 - 104% I I I Clay $36,600' 130% of median 150% of median !6O%of medin 11,000 18,300 21,980 10,150 16,700 16.7~ 16.700 20.875 ] / 20,875 20,875 66% 110% 131% 105% Cochran [60%ofmedian 16,950 20.340 I I [ ! 16,700 16,700 r I 20,875 20.875 I 101% 122% 61% 101% 122% 97% ,E t3o,aoo* 130%ofmdian 150%oimedin :60%af median I 1 - 0~1 l1+& , 76,956 20.240 10,150 16.950 20.340 10.1 51) 16.950 20.340 10,500 17,500 21,000 - 16,700 16.700 16.700 16,700 16,700 ! 20,875 20,875 20.875 ' 97% I I I - Coleman :30%ofmedian i50%ofmedian '60%ofmedian 1 I 20.875 -085 2,7- : / 20,875 20,875 20,875 20.875 - 101% 1% 22 81% 97% I h a 3 of median '50% of median 1609gof median j6.700 16,700 16.700 i , I . 122% i - ,30%of median 50% of median,60%of medlan I ;30%ofrnedian ,50%elmsdian 60%0f median - . 16,700 16,700 16,700 7 - 1 ' 20,875 20,87520,875 20,875 20.875 20,875 I , -i 63% 105% 126% 10,150 16,950 20,340 ' - 16.700 16,700 16,700 - 63% 101% 122% .- ! 97% I 30% of median 60%ofGn 50%of median 60%of median 30% of median 50% of median ,60%of median 11,600 19,350 23,220 16,700 20.875 1 6 , 7 0 0 20,875 ' ~ 16,700 20,875 116% 139% , I 7 I ! 10,150 16,700 16,950 16.700 20.34016,700 - 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 26,875 20.875. 20,875 ; 61% 101% 122% ! ! i 97% 7 - U5,2UQg 11.050 18.400 - 22.080 10,150 1 16,700 16,700 16,700 - 1 : : 1 I 110% 132% i - 106% i Crocket! i 30% - of median S32,100* :50% of median 16O%of nmdian I - 16.700 16,700 16,700 I 1 2:; 1 :; 1 20,875 20.875 61% 101% 122% 1 j 49% 81% 9% 7- Cmby $27.200' 130%0fnredin 7wmed*in 60%of d i a n i i 10.150 16.950 20.340 I : 16,700 16.700 16.700 - ; 20n875 i % I I %FT61% 49% 81% 97% I Comparison of Median Incomes Poverty Rates for Counties COUNTY Cubemon $22,200' - 8 30% of median ! 50% of median Dallam $33,700' !60%of median , Famlly of 4 10,150 16,950 20,340 10,150 16,950 I : . I Rate I 16n700 .- - .i 16,700 . 16,700 ' 16,700 16,700 i30% of median 50% of fmdian i60%0f mdian 1 1 DJk. 30% of median 16OKof median 160%of median Deaf Smlth 534,000' ! 30% o median f 20.340 ; 1 I 16,700 16,700 I 150% of median 160%of median i 1 1 j . i 10,200 17,OM) 20,400 11,050 18,400 22,080 10,500 17.500 21,000 10,150 16,950 20,340 1 0 16,950 20,340 10,t50 16,950 20.340 10,150 16,950 20,MO 10,150 16,950 20.340 11,950 19,900 23.880 j ' ' I Delta 143,300' 16,700 20,875 1 16.700 20,875 : 16,700 - I ' - 20,875 16,700 3 6,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 I ! 130% of median 150% of median !60%ofmedin OeWltt $35,000' !30% of median 150% of median I 60%of median I ! i I ; -, Olckrns -$2a,sa0* 36% of median 50% of median -'60%of median i30% of median 50% of median GO%f median 30% of median :50% of median 60%of median ' ' * i 1 16.700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 I Dlmmlt $1S,OOO. i : , ' i Donley 529,500' -Rate : ; AMPVl00.h 61% _ t01% --- I AMFV125% 49% 81% .20,875_.. 20.875 20,875 -1- 122% 61% , . 97% I 20,875 20,075 : 49% 20.875 ! 20,875 20.875 1 [ I 122% I 97% 61% 102% 122% 49% 81% , i I I 98% 53% 20.875 20,875 . 66% 110% , i ; ! 20,875 20.875 20.875 , 1 v. , 63% 105% 126% 50% 84% 101% 49% 81% -- - . - . . ' ; .- 20,875 20,875 20,875 , 61% 101% 122% 97% . ; ; ' 20,875 20,875 20,875 , I i i 61% 101% 122% I 49% 81% 97% I 1 , 20,875 20.875 ' 16,700 : - 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 , 61% 101% 122% 49% 81% 97% I I -- Duval -- 522,400' 30% of median 50% of median 60%of median . 16.700 16.700 16,700 16,700 16.700 18,700 ; 61% 101% 122% 49% 81% 97% 49% 81% 97% 57% ! Elrtllnd-520,400' A . --30% of median 50% of median 60%of median 30% of median 50% of median 60%of median , , -- Ector 61% 101% 122% 72% 119% 143% _ L - I $30,800' . -- ' - 16,700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16,700 16,700 , ! - 1 I 20,875 20,875 20.875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 i I 95% 114% 49% 81% 97% 4 9% .- Edwards ---$23,500' -. . i30Xofmediin 50% of median bO%of median , 10,150 16,950 20,340 10,250 17,050 20,460 11,300 18,850 , 1 ; -. 1 61% 101% 122% 61% 102% 123% t A I .. . - El Paso SW.100' 30% ofmsdian 50% of median 60%of median 30% ot m d i a n SO% of median ; I ; I 82% 913% 54% 90% Etath 537,700' I ; i ' i 16,700 16.700 1 ! 20,875 20,875 i , 68% 113% Comparison of Median Incomes Poverty Rates for Counties AMFl I 100% Povew Rate 1 COUNTY I I '125% Povarty i Rate / AMFU1OO.k !50% of median I 6O%ol median . I 10,150 16.950 20.340 1 I . : 16.700 16,700 16.700 j 1 : 20,875 20,075 20.875 , i , 61% 101% 122% 49Yo 81% 97% Fayetto $38,200' I 30% of median 9% median of 60%of median l30%otmdian !50% of mdlan 160%of median ! i I i 11,050 18,400 22.080 10.150 16,950 20.340 10,150 16,950 20.340 , f 6,700 16,700 16.700 20,875 20,875 20.875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20.875 20,875 , Flshrr S28,lOP 1 i , i 1 I 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 , i I I : 81% I 49% I 81% 101% 122% 97% I I Floyd $31,300' 130%o f m d i i n 150% of m d i i n ;60%ofmedian 1 I j I I 1 1 . 61% 101% 122% 61% 101% 122% 49% ---. ..- . 81%. -. -...-..L.A, .. . 97% - I 10,150 16.950 20,340 11,050 18,400 22,080 10,900 18.200 22,840 10.150 16,950 20.340 10,150 16.950 . -20,340 , -15,650 26,050 31.260 I Foard 129.900' - 130% of median 150% of median i60%of median 116.700 16,700 I I ! I I : ! I : I I t 20.875 20,875 1 ' 49% 81% 97% 53% 88% 106% 52% 87% 105% Fanklln $44,200' 130% of median ,50% of median :60%of median ' 1 . : 16,700 16.700 16,700 16.700 16.700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16.700 16,700 . ; 1 20.075 20,875 ! i ; 20,875 66% 110% 132% 65% 109% 131% -. .. . ! I 1 I 20,875 20.875 20.875 20.875 20.875 20.875 ; I I Freestone $36,400' 30% of median 150% of median 60%of median 30% of median 50% of median 60%of median '30% of - median .50% of median 60%of median , ! i , . 1 1 I , , 1 - 1 i i , i 1 1 61% 101% 122% . 49% 81% 97% 49% , ' ; i I rn 20,875 20.875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20.875 'r---' Gahreston -. . 30% - -of median -, . .- --. $52,: [ly 50% of median 60%of median - - iI 1 ! I 61% 901% 122% 94% I I 81% 97% - . .- -_ 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 ' I I 1 1 : 156% 187% 61% I 75% I 25% 150% 49% I - S3UJOO' --- 30% of median --50% of median 10,150 16,950 1 20,875 20,875 ; 16,700 , , 122% I 97% 59% 99% 118% 53% 88% 106% . .60aAof median 541,200' 30% of medin 50% of rned~an 60%of median 20,340 12,350 20,600 24.720 11,050 18.400 22,080 I - 16,700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16.700 16,700 I 20,875 20,875 20.875 20,875 20.875 20,875 I I 74% 123% 148% 66% 110% 132% I ! I I Glasscock 3070of median 50% ol median 60%oI median : $38.800' 1 ; ! ! I $31,500' .- . .- 50% of median ,60%of medlan -. 16,950 I 20,340 t0,lSD I I 16.700 16.7QL) 16,700 20,875 20,875 I 101% 122% i 81% I 07% 49% Gonules 30% of median ---.- I 61% , 20,875 1 ! %L6 %LQ %6P I ! I %ZZ 1 %LOL % L9 %LC b %PLl %S9 %66L %99L %66 %LZ 1 %wL %E9 ; j i ELB'OZ GL8'0Z 5L8'OZ 9L8'OZ 9L8'OZ SLO'OZ SLB'OZ 5L8'OZ SLB'OZ GL8'01 SLO'OZ 9L8'OZ : i 1 . 00L191 OOL'91 OOL'91 OOL'91 OOL'91 ODL'9L 00L49L 00L'Ql OOL'9 L ! i ; i ' OPE'OZ OE6'9L OGL'OL ! I : I uQW10%09, ue!paw P %MI ue!Peu 4 %OE' 0 I .O~'LZS ~EIEPIH %60 1 j %L6 %99 4665 1 . . . . i 1 ! ' i 008'22 000'6l DO*' 1L OPZ'CE OOL'LZ 009'9 1 OPZ'LZ OOL'LL 009'0L OQO'ZZ OOC'BL NO' 1L OPG'EZ i ! UWPW P%09 1 u e ! P u l o %@I u e ! W u P %0El uE!Pw 40%091 u e ! W lo %@, ue!Wulo % E O .OOL'6H lllrldluebt ! I _- -_ %EEL %08 t i j : I I - .OoP'PEO sde~ %zoL %SQ %LS I I ' , I : ODL'SL WL'~L OOL'9L 001'91 OOL'91 00L'91 , ' 1 I --' 3 ue!paw jo%og: uqpeur lo %E; ,ODP'PC$ ue!P@u0 %OC 4 ue!W10%09 ue!pau 40 qgm, ue!Pa'JJ0 %OE: 4 uaP8Uf10%091 ue!pUJ $0%OSi ue!Pau 4 %OF I 0 ue!Palu IOXO9 1 UE!p8W 40 0hE ! ue!Paw lo % E ; O IlaWeH %90& %%ES %ZEL %OL1 I ' SLB'OZ ' ' I -.J SLB'OZ 9L8'0Z ,009'WS %99 %CPL 94611 %ZL -- - A~IV~H %Ell I 1 I i ! 94% %LG - SL8'0Z 5LL8'0Z SLQ'OZ I OOL'91 00L'gi WL'9i OOL'91 OOL'91 OOL'91 00La91 OOL'91 O L'9 1 O L I N6'6 L OS6'11 09P'ZE OsO'Lt OSZ'9 L , .006'6ES UOSIJ~EH - -- %SSl %O& 1 %M 1 %Z9 1 %L6 %SZ t .---- %QL Yo00 1 %w %OE SLB'OZ sL8'oz ELQ'OZ SLQ'OZ SLB'OZ SLB'OZ PLQ'OZ SL8'Ot GL8'OZ SLB'OZ . . , ' ' I ,ooC'E$ W eH ! %WL - ; ' %E9 I ' OW'02 EP'L I IXP'OL I ue!Pau loX09 ue!Pw lo %OS, ue!Paw 4 % C 0 O ue!Pelu 40%091 .OOS'WS ueurepre~ I %90L %88 %EE %L6 % 18 %ZEL %OIL %99 i 1 ! I i i OOL'9L WL'9t OOL'91 OOL'91 ' 080'7.2 OOP'8l OSO'LL OPE'OZ U V P w 4 %OGI 0 ua!Pau lo %OEl I ue!P'JJ 10%091 ue!pew 40 %OEI ue!patu p %or ; m0OL'WS PJaltUW-i - -- . .-- - . - %ZZ b . . . I %6P %L6 %lR %6P %66 FE O %L9 i I SL~'OZ ELQ'OZ SLB'OZ SLO'DZ SLB'OZ I OOL'~~ _ OOL'9I I ~6'91 OSL'OL OPE'OZ 096'91 OSb'Ot OOL'OZ ! ; uo~!uren ,OOC'SCS %ZZ C I I 00L'91 00L'gt 00L191 OOL'91 WL'9I I %tOL 4619 I 1 : , ue!P@u 40%09 uQpeUrlO%OG UWPawlO % E O u W W lo%O9 ,009'9Lf tllH I %E8 %OS %EO L %9@ %L9 %L IL %LO1 %PZL %EO 1 %Z9 / I I SLB'OZ GL8'OZ mZ'LL I *OOC'Pr$ I KE'OC OOP' L 006'Ll NL'OL uwew lo %or e101-i i %6z i %LO1%P9 i . . . . II I !~LQ'OZ ELB'OZ 9L8'0z SL~'OZ SLQ'OZ 9LB'OZ SLB'OZ SLO'OZ ELR'OZ SL8'02 SLQ'OZ ! 1 OOL'~C 00L19L oo~'9c I ! z i ' 1 I ue!paw 40%09 uWPaUl0 %E UVPalu40 %0€ 7 .00e'S~$ s@UJIJ9 %L9 %El 1 %p6 %LS~ %9ZL %9L %LPl %.LL t %OL i I i I ; ! I , WL'W OOL'SL 00L'9~ OOL'9 l MIL'QL 00L'gl OOL'91 OOL'SL I I 1 WZ'SZ OSO'lZ 0m'Zt i u w e ~~% o 1 g u e ! P u $0 %N! UWpewlo %O& ue!Peu P%09 ue!peuio %osl ue!paurlo%ot! UgPeu P%O91 o~l I I ,OOL'ZH uosXsl~ OZS'EZ 009'6~ WL'IL OPE'OZ m6'91 Pbol[llwed IdWV I %92 %L6 46 18 I I ; : i i I -009'CM Am9 ! I %Ztl %LOL XOOCIUWV 1 ! I 1 ' i j - I I U ~ P W ~% O .oovte$ ~LEZVUWV WM & e ~ o d%PC& : i h ~ o KOOC d 1 AIN~OD Comparison of Median Incomes Poverty Rates for Counties COUNTY 150% ofmedin '60%of median 1 i Famllv of 4 10,300 17,150 20.580 Rate 16,700 16,700 16.700 I 1 i Rate 20,875 20.875 20,875 ' -- AMFVI 00% 62% 103% 123% , AMFIIl25W ! 99% 350% of median i !BO%of median 1 i 18,400 22.080 j , 16,700 16,7DD 1 1 20,875 20,875 132% I Houston S20,lOO' ' 30% of median 1 0 of median 5% 16O%of median I I 10,tSO t 6.20.340 1 I I 16,700 16,700 16,700 20,875 1 20,875 20,875 i -I I 61% 101% 122% I / I 49% 81% 97 % Hudspeth 521.1 OO* 130% of median i50% of median :60%ofmedian 30%of median ,50%ofmdian 60%oimedian I i I 10,150 16.950 20,340 11,400 19,000 22.800 1 16.700 16.700 . 16,700 16.700 16,700 16.700 I I 1 1 20,875 20.875 - .20,875 20,875 20,875 20.875 1 i I 61% 101% 122% 68% 114% 137% I 49% 81% 97% Huthlnson $44,200' - I , I I i , 1 . 55% 91% 109% - 535,000' - 30% of median 50% of median 60%0f median 30% of median I 10,500 . ! 1 17.500 21,000 10,800 16.700 16.700 16,700 . ; j 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 ' ! I 63% 105% 126% 65% 108% 129% , 84% 101% 52% I- I I Jackson $36,000' ,50% of median 609Qof median 30% of median 50% of median 60%of m&in ; 18.0W 21.600 I I I , 16.700 16.700 16.700 16,700 t6,71)0 16.700 j [ I I 20,875 20.875 ' : 1 I I 103% ' 10,500 17,500 21.000 10.150 16,950 1 , 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 ! I 63% Io5% .t26% 61% 1 0 1 % t 22% -. 1-I 50% _ 84% 101% Jaff Davis - , ' 60%of median 20,340 12.950 21,600 - 16,700 16,700 16,700 1 49% 1 20,075 20.875 20.875 20,875 20,875 ' I at% 97% I t- Jefferson 543,200' 30% of median 50% of median ..-6Wofmedian 25,920 -- 16.700 16.700 16.700 I . ! I 78% 129% 155% I 1 62% 103% 124% Jlm Wells $31,800' 30% of median 50% of d i a n 60%of median :30%of median 50% of mediin 60%ofmediin i I i I I t 0.1 50 16,950 20,340 . 16.700 16.700 16.700 16,700 16,700 16.700 I I 20.875 20.875 20.875 20,875 20.875 20.875 ! I 1 i Els 101% 122% .-F._ I . 49% 81% 97% ! Jones $35,400' i . 10,550 17,550 21,060 1 ; i 1 63% 105% 126% 51% . @% 4 101% Comparison of Median Incomes Poverty Rates for Counties COUNTY I I 1 AMFl Farnlly ot 4 I Rata I Uate ; I AMF11?00% , , AMFV125K 16.700 60%of median Kendall $55.800' 1 1 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 ' [ 20,340 16,700 ; 122% 78% 130% 156% --- . 97% ; 30% of median ! 50% of median I6O%of median I 13,W 21,650 25.980 10,150 16,950 20.340 10,150 16,954 20,340 11.800 19,700 I t6,700 16,700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16.700 16,700 1 I ; ! : I -. . . 62% 104% 124% . .." I 1 Kmnmdy S25,OOO' !30% of medlan 1 ' . . .. . - t 50% of median \60%d median : I 20,875 20.875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 I i 61 % 101% 12.2% 61% 101% 122% 81% 97% I Kent $30,800' 130% of median 150% of median 1609bofmedin I I I I 1 49% 81% 97% Kerr $39,400' 1 118% I 94% ! 142% 113% 23,MO I ; I I 130% of medlan 150% of m a t i i n 160%of median 1 16,700 16,700 16.700 20,875 20,875 20,875 ! : 71% 57% Kimblo $31,400' ,30% d median ,M% median of ;60%of median '30%ofmedian 50% d median 60Xof median , ' 10,150 16,950 20,340 11,050 18,400 22,080 10.150 16,950 20,340 10,600 17,650 2f ,180 10.150 16.950 20,340 . ' 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 20.875 i I 20,875 , 61% 101% - . - - - -. . 49% 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 122% 66% 110% 132% 81% 97% I I I Kinp -- ' $41.800' I ' ' ! 1 .- Klnney 30% of median 525,800'...-. ..--0 % of median 5- - . -. . . 60%of median -- .. - . --- - -- -- . I 53% 88% 106% 49% 81% ' , 20,875 . 61% 20,875 -101% --- -20,875 122% 20.875 20,875 20,875 . . - ... .- - 9?% . - -. . Kleberg - . -. - $35,300' -. - - - .- -. . - -. -- --Knox . . . 30% of median 50% of median ,60%of median - . -' 1 , 0 6 7 0 1 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 - -. i 63% 106% 127% 61% 101% 122% . 51% 85% ,.. -. 101% 49% 81% 97% 54% 90% 108% .. , . . -- - 130% of median 50% of median ,60%of median ! @ ,! OT s $37,600' . - - .- - - . - . -- . . .. Lamar -- 20.875 20,875 20,875 j : - . - .. .- - . 1 I - . - ... . . 30% of median 50Ya of median -,6O%of median 11,300 18,800 22,580 10,150 16,950 20,340 - - -, 20,875 20.875 68% 113% ' 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20.075 20,075 20,875 20.875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20.875 20.875 135% -. Lamb- . 130,400,' . -. - .. , . -. . . . . .. 30% of median - ' 50% of median median . -- -..- .. . -60%of median - 61% 101% 192% 1 -‘j- 49% 81% 97% I ---- . Lampasas , * - . . .. . .30% of . . - : -. - $37,600' . . . . -- . - -. .50%-of median -6OXof median 30% of median 50% of median 60Xof mediin .30% of median 50% of median 860%of median 30% of median 50% d median -- - . . . 11,050 18,400 22,080 10,150 16,950 16,700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16.700 16.700 16,700 , - 16,700 , 66% 110% 132% 61% 101% 122% 66% 110% 132% 53% 88% 1 ~ %-- 7 -- la Sail%- -- - I 1 I 1 I - 49% 81% 97% $26,800m j . I I - .Lavaca $38,200. 20,340 11.050 i 1 1 I 1 . 0 8 4 0 * I 22,080 I 1 1 53% 88% 1M% 54% 1 16,700 16.700 I I 68% Lee $39,600' 11,300 18,850 20,875 20,875 lt3% 90% Comparison of Median Incomes Poverty Rates for Counties I , AMFl Family of 4 , 100% Poverty , Rate II 125% Po~erty ] I Rate AM~GOP'A AMFVl25'h Leon $38,300' '30% of median .50%of median GE%of median I 11,350 18,950 22.740 , 16,700 16,700 16,700 , I 1 20,875 20,875 20.875 113% 136% 109% 30% of median 50% of rnedlan 60%ot median 4 11,050 18,400 22,080 ' ' 1 I 16,700 t6.700 16,700 20,875 20,875 20,875 20.875 20,875 20,875 I i 66% 1 tO% 132% 66% 110% 132% 53% I 88% - - . .. , . - . 106% - -- ! 16.700 16.760 16.700 16,700 16,700 16,700 I I tlvo Oak 537,600' :30% of median 150%of mediin 160%01median I 11,050 18,400 22,080 10,150 16,950 20,340 539'0 1 I BB% 106% I i Llano / 30% of median i50% of median i 60%of median I , $33.300' . I ' i 20,875 20.875 20,875 i 1 I 61% 101% 122% 49% 81% 97 % - I Lubbock 542,900' '3Wbofmedian '50%o(rnedian 60%of median , , 12,850 21.450 25.740 i ; ' 16,700 16,700 16.700 i 20,875 20,875 20.875 I , 77% 128% 154% .- 62%. 1239a I McCulloch $30,900' 30% of median '50% of median '6O%of median 8 10,150 16,950 20.340 1 2,800 21,350 25.620 i , 16,700 16,700 16.700 16.700 16.700 .- 16.700 ; 7 20,875 . 20,875 20.875 20,d75 , ' 101% 122% 77% 128% 153% I McLannan 542,700' 30% of median '50% of median '60%of median ' - 20.875 20,875 -. --.--- 102% . 123% -' , -"-I --- 81% 97% - . -. . 30% of median ' 50% of median 60%of median 11,050 18,400 22,080 16.700 - --. - - 16,700 ' , 20,875 132% 106% I 6OXof median 20:340 lO.l!iO .. .. 16,950 20,340 I 16.700 -- - 20,875 20.875 20,875 - 20,875 , I 122% 61% 101% 122% 61% I 97% 49% 81% 97% 49% -30%of $28,600' median 50% of median 60%d d i a n t 6.700 16,700 16,700 I j -- Martln 128,400' '30% dm&n :M%ofmedin 160Mrnadbn 1 \ I t0.150 -0 5 20,340 j [ 1 16.700 16.700 16.700 1 1 ! j 20,875 20,875 ' I 20,875 20,875 20.875 20,875 107% 122% 6l% 102% 123% I 01% 97% . - Mason 134,100' 130% of mediin i 50% of median lb0%of medin I 10,250 16,700 16,700 16,700 I I - 40% 82% 98% Comparison of Median Incomes Poverty Rates for Counties j COUNTY Matagorda $36,500' I 1 30% of median ' 150%of median 160%of median ; i I AMFl Famlly o f 4 11.550 19,250 23,100 , 700% Poverty ; / / , Rate 16.700 16.700 16,700 I 125.A~Poverty Rate 20,875 20.875 20.875 I i : ! , . AMFIROO% 69% 115% 138% - AMFIIIIS% 55% ! Mavarlck $20,200' .30% of median '9%median of 16(1%of median I I I t0,150 16.950 20.340 1 1 i I I - 92% I -t t % - 16,700 16.700 16.700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16,700 i , 20,875 20,875 20.875 20,875 20,075 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20.875 20,875 20,875 -- - - . . .. . , 101% 61 % 1 122% 49% at% 87% .. Modlna $39,000' 130% af median :50% of median f60%ofmedian 130%of median 150% of median !60%ofmdian , 11,050 18.400 22,080 10,150 16,950 20,340 11.950 19.900 23,880 I 1 i - 1 i ! 66% 110% 132% 61% .534b _ 88% 106% 49% .- --. 1 ! 1 / I Menrrd snr,4004 i , / I 101% 122% 72% 119% 143% 61% 122% 81% Mldlrnd :30% of median median 160%of median 130% of median 150% of median : 50% of I 1 1 ! $3B,800' Mllam $32,200' 1 16,700 16.700 16,700 16,700 16.700 I i -- - 97% -...57% -- .-- 95% - . ! I _-_ . i I ! p p . 114% , I 10,150 16,950 ] ! , 20,875 20.875 49% 81% 97% -. I Mflts $30,500* ! 30% of metiin 150% ofmetiin ,60%of median 30% of median '50% of median !60%of M i a n 30% of median 50% of median 6O%of median I 1 i I 10,150 16,950 20,340 10,150 16,950 20,340 ! 1 I 16,700 16,700 16,700 16.700 16.700 16.700 j 1 20,875 26.875 20.875 20,875 20,875 20.875 20,875 , ! ' , 61% 101% 122% 61% 101% 122% 61% . 49% 81% 97% 49% 81 % 97% I q:::: 1 Mitchell 532,700' ' I 1 -a Montague $360 3,0' Moore * ' 10,150 16,950 20,340 11.050 18,400 22,080 16,700 16.700 15,700 49% -- ~ 0 , 7 0 ~ - - 30% of median '50% of median 60%of median , 1 : ' Morris - - -- 16,700 16,700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16.700 20,875 20,875 20,875 -110% 132% 106% $36,700' 130% of median 504~-Zmedian 60%of median - . .. . t 1,000 18,350 22,020 10a150 ! ' -- 20,875 20,875 20,875 - : 66% 110% 132% --. . - 53% 88% 105% . . - .-. . . -. . . . -. . I !?!le~. .. $27,700' -- 30% of mdian -- 50% of median - 6O%of median 16,950 20,340 , . , 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16.700 16,700 - 1 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20.875 20.875 20.875 20,875 20,875 20,875 - 61 % 1019'0 122% I -- - ..". ., I 1 . - 49% 81% 97% 57% Nacogdoches .. 30% of median 11.950 s3soo:.. 50% - of median -.. . - - median - 60Kol . 9 . 9 ! . , 23,440 10,900 18,200 21,840 10,150 16,950 20.340 10.400 17.300 ' - :: i ' ! 72% 119% 1 43% -. I ! - 96% 115% -- NavaK% 536,400' . 30% of median .50% of median 60%of median 16,700 16,700 16.700 1 ; i j 1 j 65% 109% 131% 61% 101% 122% 52% 87% 105% Newton $28,100' ,30% of rnediin . 5 % pr 0 ,60%01median I ] I 16,700 18,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 ' I i j 49% 81% 97% Nolan $34,600' :30% of median .50% of median i ; ' 20,875 20.875 62% : 50% I tW% 83% Comparison of Median Incomes Poverty Rates for Counties COUNTY Nueces $40,600' ; 160%of median 130% of rnedbn :50% of median 160%of median 130% of median /50%of mediin IBO%f median / 1 . ! AMFl Famlly of 4 20,760 12.200 20,300 24 100% Poverty Rat0 1 16,700 I ; 125% Poverty i I / / I ! Rate 20,875 20,875 1 . ; AMFWIOOX 124% 73% 122% ....... ...... - - AMFUl25X 99% 58% 97% i ! 1 ; , 16,700 16,700 -- 20.875 Ochlltree t41,200' 21,050 18.400 ! 1 1 22,080 11,950 19,900 23,880 I 16,700 16,700 16,700 20.875 20,875 20,875 20.875 20,875 20.875 20,875 20,875 I ' I1O% 132% . . 88% 106% I Oldham 543,300. 30% of median 50% of median 60%of median i I 16,700 16,700 16,700 1 1 i 72% 139% 143% 78% 129% t 55% 61% 101% 122% 61% 101% i I -- . . 57% 95%114% A - Orange #100' 30% of median !50% of median :60%ot median 130% of median 150% of median 160%of median i 12,950 21,600 25,920 10,150 16,950 20,340 10,150 16.950 1 ! I 1 16,700 16,700 16,700 - 1 I 1 1 I 62% 103% 124% Palo Plnto 532,400' ! ! i I 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 1 j 1 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 49% ! 81% 97% Panola s ,400+ n .- -30% of median i 50% of median I i ! 1 i 49% 81% Parmer $34,500' 60%of median 30% of median 50% of median 60%of median 10,150 16,950 20,340 , Pecos $29,BOO* ; . ' 16,700 16,700 16,700 j : ' 20,875 20.875 20,875 20.875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 ! : 1 61% 101% 122% 61% 101% 122% -' 49% 81% 97% I ! Polk S31,700* .--. ; 30% of median 50% of median 60%of median 30% of median 50% of median ! . - - ----Potter 10.1 50 16.950 20,340 12,600 21,000 25,200 10,150 16,950 20,340 8 , 16,700 16.700 16,700 : ! , ... I ! i I ' 49% 81% 97% -- .. .- I 1 , I 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16,700 75% s42*000' . -.... .. . . .. .. . : i 60%--. - 60%olm#dian I I : lZ6%...... . 151% I 101% 121% . Presidio 30% of median -. - - i , 525.800' -- - - .50% of median - -. - 20,875 20.875 , ... Rains - . -. . . + 60%of median 20.875 I 61% 101% 122% 65% 108% 130% 49% -I I 81% -- 97% 52% 86% 104% . 536,100'........... - ........... - -- ,- 30% of medin 50% of m e d i n 60°&of median , A . - Reagan 531,200' ....... . - . ~ 30% of median 10,550 16,700 i 20,875 63% 51% -. . . . 10,850 . 18,050 2 t ,660 ....... 17,600 21,120 -. r, I 1 : 20,875 20,875 20,875 1 i . . . ! - ; 50% of median 60%of median . . , , .......... ' 16,700 16,700 16,700 20,875 . i 105% * ! Real $26,500' 30% of median 50% of median 60%of median 30% of median 50% of median i60%of median 10,150 16,950 20,340 10.150 16.950 20.340 10,150 j 20,875 -. I 126% ! -. .. -. - . . . , 20,875 . 84% 107% 49% 81% 97% -- 61% 1 , 16,700 16,700 76,700 16,700 16,700 : 20,875 20,875 20.875 20.875 122% 61% 101% 122% 61% Red Rker $30,00(r j j 1 ! , . 1 1 4994 81% 97% 49% Reevos -- 30% of median 20,875 Comparison of Median Incomes Poverty Rates for Counties ; COUNTY $25,600' I ! 50% of median !60%of median I AMFl Famlb of 4 16,950 20,340 : ! ! , 100% Poverty Rate 16,700 16.700 I : : 125% Povep ! Rate 20,875 : 20,875 ! AMFV1OO.A 101% 122% . AMFllt25lb 81% 97% ---- I I Refuglo $34,100' 130%olmdian i50% of median i6O%dmedian 30% of median 50% o median f 60%of median : i 10,250 17,050 20,460 11,050 18,400 I ' I I I 16n700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16,700 16,700 ; i 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20.875 I Roberts L38,800* I . 61% 102% 123% 49% 82% 98% . I / j 22,080 10,500 17,500 21.000 ! [ Robertson $35,000' '30% of median 50% of median 60Xof median .30% of median i 50% of median I 1 j I 1 I 1 I 126% 61% 101% 122% ! 101% 49% 81% 97% --a I Runnels $32,700' j I 10.150 16,950 16,700 16,700 1 i I 20,875 20,875 -. Rusk W,OOO' !30%ofmedian !50%of median 160%of median 130% of median 150% of median !60%ofmedian '30% of median -50% of median 1 : ; I 11,050 18,400 22.080 10,150 16,950 20.340 10,150 16.950 1 i 16,700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16,700 20,875 1 i ; i I 20,875 20,875 20.875 20.875 66% 110% 132% 61% 101% , 53% 88% 106% --- Sabine $31,10Oa I I j ' 1 ' . .. -- -- . . . 49% 81% ' San Augustine 526,400' 1 ; 16.700 16,700 / ! 20,875 20,875 ' : 81% 101% 49% 81% San Jaclnto $31,700' 130% of median ! 50% of median : 60%of median , 10,150 16,950 20,340 16,700 16,700 16,700 . . , 20,875 20,875 20,875 1 I Ssn Saba $27,500* - -30% of median : Schlelcher $35,000a - 130% of median :50%of w i n :60%ofmedian 130% of rnediin ,50%of median ,60%nfmediin , 10,500 16,700 20,875 1 Scurry $39,000' 11,450 : 22,860 -- 16.700 16,700 ' 20,875 : 20.875 Shackelford $31,600' 30% of median _L,50% of median ' :60%of median '30% of W i n !50%ofmediin ,60%01median 130%ofmedian 150% of median t O dmedian 6 % 130%ofmedian 1 50% of median i60%of median 10,150 t 6,950 20,340 10,150 16,950 20.340 10,500 17,500 21,000 11,150 18,600 22,320 : . .. , - 16,700 16,700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16,700 16,700 36,700 16,700 20,875 ' i I 20,875 20.875 1 ; 61% 101% 122% 49% 81% 97% . . . Shelby 530,900' I 1 ' , 20.875 20.875 20,875 20,875 20,875 -1 : ! 61% . 101% 3 22% 63% .! I ! 49% 81% 97% 50% 84 % f 01% I I Shomrpn S35,000* i 1 1 ! I / 1 1 / 20,875 20,875 20.875 20,875 105% 126% , I Sommell $37,200' 1 1 / 1 , 67% 111% t 34% 53% i I 89% 107% Comparison of Median Incomes Poverty Rates for Counties JCOUNTY Smkh W,OOO* Rate I Rate I 1 I AMFlliOOK 79% 132% t 58% 61% ' AMFIIl25K 130% d median 150% of median 160%01median ] 1 13.200 22.000 26.400 10,150 ! 1 I 16,700 16,700 16.700 16.7QO 16,700 I ! 20,875 20,875 20.875 20.875 63% .- 105% 726% 49% - . 160%Pf median I Stephans 132,200' 130%0lmedlan Starr :30% of median i 20.340 , I 150% of median 160%ot M i n 10,150 16,950 20,340 ' 16.700 18,700 16,700 20,875 20.875 20,875 61% 101% f 22% I I 49% 01X 97% .- I 645.70W Stonewall $32,300' j30%ofmsdian 150% nf median !60%0fmedian I / I 11.050 18.400 22,080 I 16,700 16.7M1 16,700 ' 1 i 1 ! 20,875 20.875 20,875 20,875 t 66% 110% 132% 61% 122% 53% . . 88% i I 106% / 30% of median 150% of median 160Nof median I 10.150 - 16,700 16,700 ; ' , 49% 97% I 16,950 20,340 11,050 18.400 22.080 I 20.875 I I Sutton 537.800' : 30% of median 150% of median 160%of median i 1 i i i I I I 1 t ! 16,700 16.700 16.700 16.700 16,700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16,700 16,700 ! I 20,875 20.875 20.875 I I 66% 110% '132% 53% 88% 106% 1 I ! Swlsher $32,400' I ;30%of median '50% of median '60%of median 10.150 t6.950 20,340 16,600 27,650 33.180 1 , ! 20.875 20,875 20.875 20.875 20.875 20.875 20,875 20.875 ' 1 ; ! I 61% 101% 122% I 49% 81% 97% Tarrant $55,300' . . '30% of median ,50% of median 60%of median '30% of median 150% of median !60%of median ;30% of median 50% of median ,60%of median ' , I 1 99% 166% 199% 71% 110% . . 142% 1 ! - 80% 132% 159% 57% 9 4% . . 113% - Taylor $34.400 ! , i ' ! 11,800 19.700 23,640 10,150 16,950 20.340 I i 1 ! 1 1 / ' I 20,875 20,875 20,875 20.875 ! Tsrrell $33,400' , , ! i 101% 122% I 1 I I 538,000' -- -- . - 30% of median 50% of median 60%of median 30% of median 50% of median 60%of median 30% of W i n 50% of median 60%of median 30% of mdian 50% of median 60%oImedian 18,000 i 1 I 2t ,600 10,150 16.950 20.340 , ' . 20,875 20,875 20,875 . 108% 129% 61% 101% 122% I - 5294. t 03% : : , 127,900' , ' i I 16,700 16,700 16.700 20.875 20,875 20.875 4B% 81% 97% 54% 90% 108% I I 1 t Tltus 537.700' 1 11,300 18,850 -- , ,- 22,620 I 16,700 16.700 16.700 -i 20,875 20.875 20,875 i ' 1 68% 113% 135% 73% 121% 146% Tom GI*? 540.500 - ~ , 20.250 24,300 16,700 16,700 : : 20,875 20,875 20,875 ! : ! I 58% 97% 116% ! - Trinlty 133.900' 30% of median 50% of median I 10,150 16,950 i ! : 16,700 16,700 i 20.875 20.875 61% 101% I ! 49% 81% Comparison of Median Incomes Poverty Rates for Counties AMFl I 100% Poverty ! I COUNTY '60%0f median Tylor , 1 ! i I Famlly of 4 20.340 1 1 Rate 16.700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16.700 16,700 16,700 16,700 15.700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 t25% Poverty Rate 20.875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 , AMFVI 00% 122% AMFUl 25% 97% S33,400' Upton 130%ofmedian 150% of median i60%of median !30% of median - t 50% of median 160%of median I 10.150 16,950 20,340 11,050 18,400 22,080 10.150 16,950 20.340 10,150 16,950 20,340 . / i I I I : I I $39,600' ! i 66% 110% 132% 61% 101% 122% 53% 88% : 1Q6% 49% 81% 97% I Unlda U ,GOO* 1 130% of rnedian 150% of median 160%01median i 1 I , 20,875 20.875 20,875 20.875 20,875 20,875 1 1 : , I 1 I ! Val Verde $26,700' 1 30% of median 1 50% of m a d i n 16O%of median 1 , 1 : / i I i ! 61% 101% 122% 44% 01% 97% 50% 84% 100% 1 I 10,450 t7,450 20.940 Van ZPndt $34.900' 130% of median 150% of median :6O%ol median ; 30% of median 50% of median '60%of median 1 j 16,700 16.700 16,700 i 1 ! 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,075 20.875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20.875 20,875 I I 63% 104% , 125% 77% 128% 154% I Vlctoria 5*1,900' 1 1 12,850 21,400 25,6843 11.550 / i 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 16.700 / 1 ' 62% 103% 123% ' Walker $38,500' - . . Ward $33,100*--, .- -. . . . - .. - --- -of median 30% .- - 30% of median 50% of median 60%of median ! ' 19,250 23.100 10.150 16,950 20.340 . 1 69% 115% 138% - -- - 55% - 92% t l t % -. ----- 49% 81% 97% , 1 -- 50% of median 60%of med~an ] i . 61% 101% 122% --.- - .- .. - Washington .30% of median 541,600' - -. 50% of median - -. 60kot median 20.800 24.960 10.150 , 16,700 16.700 16,700 . 20,875 20,875 20,875 I W%._ ., _. . $30,200' 30% - - - of median ' - A . 50% of median 60%d median - W O W? . -. . - 30% of median $39,200' -. . - -50% of median -609Qofmedian -. -, . -. - - - - . . -. Wheeler. . ---. . 30% of median -- - - - g32,500' - .-. . . . -.. . - . . . . 50% of median 60%of median - 10,6SCI 17,750 : 21,3QO Wichita-. . -- - - - . . 30% of median 539,200' -. -. - .50% of medlan - . 60%of median - - - . -. - - 16,700 16.700 - 16.700 ' 20,875 20,875 20.875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 , , 64% 106% 128% 51% 85% 102% 11,7M 19,600 23,520 10.600 17.650 21.180 10,150 16.950 20.340 16.700 16.700 16.700 16.700 16.700 16.700 - 70% 117% 141% - .. .. . - ! 30% of rndian 50% of median 60%of median ,30% of median 50% of median 60%of metiin 30% of median .- 56% 94% 113% 51% 85% @.[' z%1WILlacy $26,100' Wllbarger - -- . ' i , t 1 I I i 1 63% 306% 127% 61% 101% 122% tot% 49% 81% 97% 1 ' i 16,700 16,700 16,700 1 I 20,875 20,875 20.875 20,875 1 , I 99% 1 ' Wtlliamson 16.600 16,700 . 80% Comparison of Median Incomes Poverty Rates for Counties 1 COUNTY $55,400 150% of msdian 160%of median I . AMFI Famlly of 4 27.700 33,240 10,250 17,050 20,460 11,100 18,500 22,200 i 100% Poverty ; Rate - 16.700 II I 125% Poverty i Raw 20,875 20,875 20,875 20.075 20,875 ! - 16.700 1 I I 1 I j j I AMFUl00.k 166% 199% 61% 102% 123% 66% 111% ' AMFUl25% 133% 159% WtnUor $34,400' 1 30% of median -- 1 - 50% of median 60%0imdii11 , - 11,700 16,700 16.700 : I -- i I I 1 49% 82 % 98% Wlse 540,600' 30% of msdian 50% of median 1 6 0 ~median 1 30% of median 50% o f r m e d i a d 60%of W i a n ! 16,700 16,700 f6,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 - { I 20.875 20,875 20.875 20,875 20,875 20.875 20,875 i 133% i. ! I I I 53% 8936 106% Wood S37,1OW 11,150 18.550 22,260 11,400 19,000 22,800 10,350 17,250 20.700 t0.150 16.950 20.340 , ! 1 I 1 I j I 67% 111% 133% 68% 114% 137% 53% 89% 107% Yo~kum S38,000° 130% of median 150% of median , i 16,700 16,700 16,700 1 I ' : 20,875 20,875 ' 1 I 55% 91% 109% I Young $34,500' 130% of median i50% of median 160%of median i309gofmedian 150% of median 160%of median ; 1 - I ! i ! 16,700 16,709 16,700 16,700 16,700 16,700 ' 20,875 20,875 20,875 20,875 20.875 20,875 1 1 I 62% 103% 124% 61% 101% 122% 50% 83% g9% Xapata S27,000' 1 1 i I j , I i 49% 81% 97% 49% - 6t% 101% I 81% 97% I - -.- - -- . - -- - - 0% 0% -.