Lakeport >> Lake County seniors are among the poorest in the state, a fact recently highlighted in a new study on the “hidden poor” — those who earn too much to qualify for public assistance but still struggle to survive.
Nearly one in five California adults older than 65 live in what Venetia Lai of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research calls an economic no-man’s land, the gap between the federal poverty level and the Elder Index’s poverty measure, considered to be a more accurate cost estimate of what it takes to have a decent standard of living.
The national Federal Poverty Line (FPL) guidelines say a single elderly adult living alone should be able to live on $10,890 a year. The Elder Index, however — accounting for geographic differences in costs for housing, medical care, food and transportation — estimates that a person in California on average requires $23,364.
According to data compiled by the center’s study, 19 percent of Lake and Mendocino counties single seniors live below the FPL. Another 41 percent are below the Elder Index, slightly more than double the state’s figure. These numbers show that more than half of the counties’ single seniors don’t have enough to meet even their most basic needs according to the Elder Index.
The number of senior couples living below the FPL in both counties drops considerably at less than 4 percent. The hidden poor number also goes down, but by less than 10 percent.
Overall Lake and Mendocino counties rank as the third highest in poverty levels for single seniors in California. Merced County comes in at second with only a 3 percent difference at 63 percent and Imperial County has the highest percentage of poor single seniors at 77 percent.
Senior couples in Lake and Mendocino counties fare slightly better in their rankings, with the eighth highest total percentage considered poor at 34.2 percent. Those living below the FPL make up 3.6 percent, and the hidden poor are at 30.6 percent.
“Many of our older adults are forced to choose between eating, taking their medications or paying rent,” said D. Imelda Padilla-Frausto, a UCLA graduate student researcher at the center and lead author of the study. “The state might be emerging from a recession, but for many of our elder households, the downturn seems permanent.”
The study, which used 2009-2011 American Community Survey data and the 2011 Elder Index data, showed that in terms of sheer numbers, whites make up more than half of elders in the financially pinched group at 482,000. Proportionately, grandparents raising grandchildren, older adults who rent, Latinos, women, and the oldest age group (75 and older) were the groups most affected.
The county groups with the highest proportion of hidden poor among households headed by single seniors are rural: Nevada/Plumas/Sierra, Mendocino/Lake and Colusa/Glenn/Tehama/Trinity.
The highest proportion of hidden poor among single elders who head households was found among African-Americans and Latinos at 37.4 percent and 36.8 percent, respectively.
The study authors have recommended ways to address the needs of those living in the gap between the federal poverty level and the Elder Index, including: increasing and protecting income as is proposed in Assembly Bill 474 and the Supplemental Security Income Restoration Act; raising income eligibility limits for housing assistance and using former redevelopment funds for construction of affordable housing; helping seniors with the cost of health care by raising income eligibility to 200 percent of the federal poverty level, from 100 percent; and expanding and updating food benefits.
“It’s very clear that income level is a major predictor of health outcomes — at any age. This research underscores that elders’ economic security is a health equity issue,” said Judy Belk, president and CEO of the California Wellness Foundation.
