Thanks, Dan.

     The data I am discussing today are the income and poverty results from the 2003 American Community Survey. Additional results from the survey are available online at www.census.gov. There you’ll find data on subject areas such as income and poverty, educational attainment, commute times, housing values, language spoken at home, grandparents as care givers, veteran status and many more topics. (Chart 13).

     Currently the ACS is in the final year of its testing phase, collecting data from a sample of 800,000 addresses per year in over 1,200 counties. We publish data for areas with populations of 250,000 or more, including 116 metropolitan areas, 233 counties and 68 places. Beginning in January 2005, the ACS is expected to expand its sample size to about three million addresses per year.

     Starting in 2006, data will be available for all areas with populations of 65,000 or more, and by 2010, data will be available down to the census tract and block group level. This is 2 years earlier than data would have been available from the traditional long form, and once produced, it will be available annually (Chart 14).

     As Director Kincannon mentioned, the Current Population Survey serves as the official source of national estimates of poverty. It is also a widely used source for estimates of income. The ACS estimates of national median household income and poverty rate may differ slightly from those of the CPS, but these differences are not statistically significant in the 2003 data.

     The ACS is the only source of current and timely data for counties and places. For purposes of my presentation all national, state and sub-state data are taken from the ACS.

     The following findings related to income and poverty demonstrate one of the benefits of the ACS -- the ability to quickly compare indicators for all states and for counties and places in the survey. These data, like those from the CPS, are produced from a sample. Therefore, numbers that appear to be different, may in fact not be statistically different. Tools to let the user determine which estimates are statistically different are available on our web site.

     Chart 15 shows Median Household Income for States. The income results show that among the states with the highest median household income were New Jersey and Maryland. At the other end of the spectrum were West Virginia and Mississippi. Among counties with populations of 250,000 or more currently in the survey, Somerset County, N.J., and Howard County, Md., were some of the counties with the highest median household incomes (Chart 16). Hidalgo and Cameron counties in Texas were among those with some of the lowest median household incomes.

     Chart 17 shows Median Household Income for Places. Among places with populations of 250,000 or more, San Jose had the highest median household income. Cleveland and Miami had some of the lowest median household incomes.

     An important feature of the ACS is that it allows you to compare metropolitan statistical areas, counties, places and even congressional districts within a state to the state totals, as well as to other local estimates. To illustrate this, let us consider Florida as an example. The median household income in Florida was nearly $40,000 per year, slightly lower than the national median. With the ACS we can drill down to the counties and cities to get a better understanding of what is taking place in the state. As you can see, incomes for Seminole and Palm Beach counties, and the city of Jacksonville, were among the highest in Florida. Miami-Dade county and the city of Miami were among the lowest.

     In 2006, we will have data for all counties and places of 65,000 population or more. By 2010, we’ll have data for all sub-state geographies, including census tracts and block groups, with new data available annually. This will provide an incredibly powerful tool for community planners and businesses (Chart 18).

     In terms of poverty, some of the states with low poverty rates included New Hampshire and Minnesota. States with the greatest percentage of persons living in poverty tended to be concentrated in the South and Southwest, including Louisiana and Mississippi (Chart 19).

      Among counties in the survey, Somerset County, N.J., and Waukesha County, Wis., had some of the lowest poverty rates. Some of the highest poverty rates among counties in the survey were found in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties in Texas (Chart 20).

     Virginia Beach and Anchorage were some of the places with the lowest poverty rates. Cleveland and Newark had some of the highest poverty rates among places in the survey
(Chart 21).

     An example of ACS sub-state comparisons of poverty, let’s look at California. With 13.4 percent of its population living in poverty, California’s poverty rate is higher than the national rate. You can see from some of the counties and places in sample which counties are elevating that number, and which are bringing it down. Already this data is helping planners track multi-year trends in poverty rates at sub-state levels. Once the ACS is fully implemented, planners will be able to drill even deeper into the areas of poverty in order to measure how well their programs are working and where to devote their resources (Chart 22).

     Louisiana and Mississippi were among the states with the highest percentage of children living in poverty. States with the lowest percentages of children in poverty were New Hampshire and Minnesota (Chart 23).

     Many of the counties with the lowest child poverty rates were suburban counties in the New York City and Washington, D.C., metropolitan areas, such as Somerset County, N. J., and Howard County, Md. Hidalgo and Cameron counties in Texas had some of the highest child poverty rates (Chart 24).

     Some of the lowest child poverty rates among places in the survey were found in Anchorage and Virginia Beach. Some of the highest child poverty rates were found in large urban areas, among them: Cleveland and Newark (Chart 25).

     Consider Texas for sub-state estimates of children in poverty. Texas’s child poverty rate was higher than the national rate. Among the larger counties in Texas for which we currently publish data, Hidalgo and Cameron have some of the highest child poverty rates. On the other end, Denton and Collin counties had some of the lowest. Places such as Austin and Arlington also have relatively low child poverty rates. As the ACS sample grows from 800,000 to about three million addresses per year in January 2005, we’ll be able to pinpoint more precisely which sub-state areas are driving changes in state-level poverty rates (Chart 26).

     Now I’ll turn this back to Dan Weinberg, who’ll discuss health insurance coverage from the Current Population Survey.