In 2023, the poverty rate of the United States was around **** percent. Louisiana was the state with the highest poverty rate, at **** percent. Poverty rates in the United States are higher than in many parts of the world, and minority groups are much more likely to be living in poverty when compared to white people.

Chiapas was the state in Mexico with the highest average extreme poverty rate in 2022. It was estimated that almost three out of ten people in Chiapas lived in a situation of extreme poverty. In contrast, Baja California was the state with the lowest extreme poverty rate, with 0.8 percent, well below the national average, which stood at 7.1 percent. The share of population living in poverty in Mexico amounted to 36.3 percent in 2022.

In 2021, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was the city with the highest poverty rate of the United States' most populated cities. In this statistic, the cities are sorted by poverty rate, not population. The most populated city in 2021 according to the source was New York city - which had a poverty rate of 18 percent.

Graph and download economic data for Estimated Percent of People of All Ages in Poverty for United States (PPAAUS00000A156NCEN) from 1989 to 2023 about percent, child, poverty, and USA.

Two out of every three persons in Chiapas lived under the poverty line in 2022, making it the federal entity with the largest share of poor population in Mexico. On average, about 36 percent of the Mexican population was living in poverty that year.

The McAllen-Edinburg-Mission metropolitan area in Texas was ranked first with 27.2 percent of its population living below the poverty level in 2023. Eagle Pass, Texas had the second-highest poverty rate, at 24.4 percent.

The State of Veracruz-Llave, commonly known as Veracruz, is the third-largest Mexican state in terms of population, with 7 million, but growing only 1.05 percent per year, which is below the national rate of 1.85 percent. The population of the state is predominantly urban (59 percent) and young (44 percent is 19 years old and younger). Veracruz's indigenous population is the third largest of any Mexican state, and represents close to 10 percent of the state total. Veracruz is one of the poorest states in Mexico. It still is the fifth-largest state in terms of GDP. There are four problems from an economic and social development point of view: (a) inadequate access to communications and public services in rural areas, (b) low productivity of the labor force, (c) low diversification of industries in the northern and southern regions of the state, and (d) lack of a coordinated strategy among government agencies. The following policies address these problems: 1. Develop a coordinated strategy, under the umbrella of the state's six-year development plan, which would support economic growth while improving the ability of the poor to participate in it. 2. Invest in physical capital such as roads and water. Roads are strategic for economic and social development of rural regions. Nevertheless, the authorities need to find a balance between providing overly costly infrastructure to villages, and providing too little, so that the residents have no access to the transport system. Shortage of water in rural areas seriously harms the well being of the population. 3. Invest in human capital, in particular, improve the provision of technical training to rural areas, and improve the quality and relevance of basic and secondary education. In the global economy, workers need the capacity to learn quickly and take advantage of current information and emerging technologies. 4. Analyze the labor market in Veracruz, with a study of its relationship with economic development. 5 . Create a strategic plan for economic development that emphasizes diversifying into high-value industries, including in the northern and southern regions. The state can do little for the oil sector except to lobby for the energy reform, since it is by constitution controlled at the federal level. World market conditions offer little hope for a major comeback in sugarcane and coffee.

In 2022, the East Malaysian state of Sabah had the highest rate of poverty in Malaysia, with 19.7 percent of the population living below the poverty line. In 2019, Malaysia revised its national poverty line income, increasing it from 980 Malaysian ringgit to 2,208 Malaysian ringgit. Sabah is one of Malaysia's most rural and least developed states.

Abstract

Poverty reduction via formation of community based organizations is a popular approach in regions of high socio-economic marginalization, especially in South Asia. The shortage of evidence on the impacts of such an approach is an outcome of the complexity of these projects, which almost always have a multi-sectoral design to achieve a comprehensive basket of aims. In the current research, we consider results from a rural livelihoods program in Bihar, one of India’s poorest states. Adopting a model prevalent in several Indian states, the Bihar Rural Livelihoods Project, known locally as JEEViKA, relies on mobilizing women from impoverished, socially marginalized households into Self Help Groups. Simultaneously, activities such as micro-finance and technical assistance for agricultural livelihoods are taken up by the project and routed to the beneficiaries via these institutions; these institutions also serve as a platform for women to come together and discuss a multitude of the socio-economic problems that they face. We use a retrospective survey instrument, coupled with PSM techniques to find that JEEViKA, has engendered some significant results in restructuring the debt portfolio of these households; additionally, JEEViKA has been instrumental in providing women with higher levels of empowerment, as measured by various dimensions.

In the current research, we consider a multi-sectoral approach which closely resembles the APDPIP design. We take a close look at the impacts of a rural poverty reduction program in Bihar, one of India’s poorest states. This program JEEViKA, focusses on building Self Help Groups (SHGs) of marginalized women; these groups are then federated into higher order institutions of such women at the village and local level. Cheap credit for a variety of purposes, technical assistance for various livelihood activities and encouraging awareness about various public services are the key agendas of this program. However, due to the very nature of JEEViKA’s target population, and given Bihar’s vicious income and gender inequality, the potential for impacts on women’s empowerment exists. A retrospective survey instrument, coupled with ‘Propensity Score Matching’ methods are used to estimate the impacts.

The results from the survey point out that JEEViKA has played an instrumental role in restructuring the debt portfolio of beneficiary households; households that have SHG members have a significantly lower high cost debt burden, are able to access smaller loans repeatedly and borrow more often for productive purposes, when compared to households without SHG members. Since JEEViKA works by mobilizing marginalized women into institutional platforms, such women demonstrate higher levels of empowerment, when empowerment is measured by mobility, decision making and collective action. Finally, we see some effects on the asset positions, food security and sanitation preferences of beneficiary households. It is worth pointing out here that the extent and significance of the results on debt portfolio and empowerment are robust to various matching modules and various specifications of the matched sample. The results on the other dimensions are subject to specifications or matching modules.

This brings out to the point about the timeline of these interventions and the materialization of impacts. In the context of such iterative, multi-sectoral poverty reduction approach, a well_x0002_designed research question must be able to identify the goals that a project should have achieved, given the time-line of that evaluation; the extent of such achievements are only a part of the evaluation agenda. The short review provided above provides some clues that a regular evaluation horizon of 2/3 years may be insufficient time to observe higher order effects, especially since actual benefits happen only after poor are mobilized into institutions and institutions are federated into higher-order institutions; indeed, the village-level institution, the Village Organization, which is made of 15 SHGs on an average, becomes functional 8-10 months after JEEViKA enters a village for the first time. The retrospective nature of the survey instrument also rules out any meaningful comparison of consumption or income levels between treatment and control areas.

Analysis unit

Household

Sampling procedure

The survey was administered to 10 randomly selected households from the target hamlets in all 200 project and 200 non-project villages; we can assume that had caste compositions changed significantly since 2001 in either the selected project or non-project villages, this should be reflected in the sample statistics. It is to be noted that the survey team did not have a beneficiary list for the treatment villages; thus the selection of interviewed HHs were truly random, and not a sample of beneficiary HHs only. The details on the questionnaire and selection of villages to survey are discussed at greater lengths in the Section 3 of the survey report - Data & Identification Strategy. The report is available for download under the Downloads section.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

An identical survey instrument covering several broad areas on socio-economic indicators was administered to each of the 4000 households. The instrument had two broad modules; the general module was administered to a responsible adult (preferably HH head), and the women’s module was administered to an ever married adult woman. The general module collected economic information focused on asset ownership, debt portfolio, land holdings, savings habit and food security condition; social indicators attempting to capture changes in women’s empowerment focused on women’s mobility, decision making and networks were part of the women’s module. The demographic profile of each household was captured by an appropriate household roster and caste-religion profile; in addition, a livelihood roster was also administered. Given the retrospective nature of the study, questions on certain indicators were designed to capture the levels at end 2007, along with the current level. However for other indicators, like debt portfolio, questions for end 2007 levels were not asked since the chances for incorrect responses are considerable.

Out of all 50 states, New York had the highest per-capita real gross domestic product (GDP) in 2023, at 90,730 U.S. dollars, followed closely by Massachusetts. Mississippi had the lowest per-capita real GDP, at 39,102 U.S. dollars. While not a state, the District of Columbia had a per capita GDP of more than 214,000 U.S. dollars. What is real GDP? A country’s real GDP is a measure that shows the value of the goods and services produced by an economy and is adjusted for inflation. The real GDP of a country helps economists to see the health of a country’s economy and its standard of living. Downturns in GDP growth can indicate financial difficulties, such as the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, when the U.S. GDP decreased by 2.5 percent. The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on U.S. GDP, shrinking the economy 2.8 percent. The U.S. economy rebounded in 2021, however, growing by nearly six percent. Why real GDP per capita matters Real GDP per capita takes the GDP of a country, state, or metropolitan area and divides it by the number of people in that area. Some argue that per-capita GDP is more important than the GDP of a country, as it is a good indicator of whether or not the country’s population is getting wealthier, thus increasing the standard of living in that area. The best measure of standard of living when comparing across countries is thought to be GDP per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP) which uses the prices of specific goods to compare the absolute purchasing power of a countries currency.

While most Americans appear to acknowledge the large gap between the rich and the poor in the U.S., it is not clear if the public is aware of recent changes in income inequality. Even though economic inequality has grown substantially in recent decades, studies have shown that the public's perception of growing income disparities has remained mostly unchanged since the 1980s. This research offers an alternative approach to evaluating how public perceptions of inequality are developed. Centrally, it conceptualizes the public's response to growing economic disparities by applying theories of macro-political behavior and place-based contextual effects to the formation of aggregate perceptions about income inequality. It is argued that most of the public relies on basic information about the economy to form attitudes about inequality and that geographic context---in this case, the American states---plays a role in how views of income disparities are produced. A new measure of state perceptions of growing economic inequality over a 25-year period is used to examine whether the public is responsive to objective changes in economic inequality. Time-series cross-sectional analyses suggest that the public's perceptions of growing inequality are largely influenced by objective state economic indicators and state political ideology. This research has implications for how knowledgeable the public is of disparities between the rich and the poor, whether state context influences attitudes about inequality, and what role the public will have in determining how expanding income differences are addressed through government policy.

Multilevel logistic regression models for individual and contextual level predictors of intimate partner violence in South Africa.

In 2023, the around 11.1 percent of the population was living below the national poverty line in the United States. Poverty in the United StatesAs shown in the statistic above, the poverty rate among all people living in the United States has shifted within the last 15 years. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) defines poverty as follows: “Absolute poverty measures poverty in relation to the amount of money necessary to meet basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter. The concept of absolute poverty is not concerned with broader quality of life issues or with the overall level of inequality in society.” The poverty rate in the United States varies widely across different ethnic groups. American Indians and Alaska Natives are the ethnic group with the most people living in poverty in 2022, with about 25 percent of the population earning an income below the poverty line. In comparison to that, only 8.6 percent of the White (non-Hispanic) population and the Asian population were living below the poverty line in 2022. Children are one of the most poverty endangered population groups in the U.S. between 1990 and 2022. Child poverty peaked in 1993 with 22.7 percent of children living in poverty in that year in the United States. Between 2000 and 2010, the child poverty rate in the United States was increasing every year; however,this rate was down to 15 percent in 2022. The number of people living in poverty in the U.S. varies from state to state. Compared to California, where about 4.44 million people were living in poverty in 2022, the state of Minnesota had about 429,000 people living in poverty.

In 2021, the city of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania had the highest family poverty rate of the 25 most populated cities in the United States. The city with the next highest poverty rate was Houston, Texas.

Abstract

As part of its greater portfolio in Northeast Brazil, IFAD supported the Brazilian government and State of Bahia to implement the Rural Communities Development Project in the Poorest Areas of the State of Bahia (PRODECAR), popularly referred to as Gente de Valor (GDV), between 2007 and 2013 .The purpose of GDV was to address the multitude of basic service gaps, empowerment deficit, and productive capacity needs experienced by residents of Brazil's Northeast region. Beneficiaries were drawn from the local population of sertanejos; a regional population named in reference to the dryland, sertão agro-climatic zone and among the poorest people in Brazil. As a CDD-style project, GDV's objective was to address their needs through a participatory process that would provide access to water-harvesting cisterns (primarily for household consumption), training on ecologically appropriate agricultural practices, technical assistance and technical inputs, as well as community capacitation to identify and address future development needs.

GDV was selected to be part of the IFAD10 Impact Assessment Agenda that consists of a broader set of impact assessments across the world. The aim is to generate evidence and provide lessons for better rural poverty reduction programs and to measure the impact of IFAD-supported programmes on enhancing rural people's economic mobility, increased agricultural productive capacity, improved market participation and increased resilience.

As almost six years having passed since the project closed, the analysis evaluates the sustainable impacts of GDV under the realm of access to infrastructure, agricultural productivity, poverty impacts, and empowerment of both women, youth and the community at large. Given the role that drought plays in affecting the economic opportunities of sertanejos, it is also relevant that this project evaluates outcomes following the recent multi-year drought. From the years 2010 to 2016, Bahia experienced a drought characterized as one of the worst of the century; affecting 33.4 million people and resulting in an estimated damage of approximately 30 billion USD (Marengo et al., 2017).

For more information, please, click on the following link https://www.ifad.org/en/web/knowledge/-/publication/impact-assessment-gente-de-valor-rural-communities-development-project-in-the-poorest-areas-of-the-state-of-bahia.

Geographic coverage

Regional coverage.

Analysis unit

Households

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The qualitative portion of the evaluation was conducted prior to the quantitative survey in order to collect information on project targeting and implementation in the targeted areas. Two primary methodologies were employed: Focus Group Discussions (FGD) and Key Informant Interviews (KII). Qualitative interviews took place across seven sub-territories and 17 communities. Communities chosen for the qualitative survey were identified based on the following economic activities: cassava, goats, and backyard gardens in combination with high intensity of water-based activities.

The quantitative data collection covered 2,019 households, and 3,615 individuals (counting 1,615 partners interviewed for the WEAI), in 228 communities. Given that the nature of the intervention expected both household and community impacts, the construction of a counterfactual was a multi-stage process stratified at the community, and then household level.

More details on the sampling procedure can be found in the IA plan and reports, attached in the documentations tab.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The data were collected using a mixed-method approach in order to capture both expected and unexpected impacts of GDV. The data collection took place six years after the closing of GDV, offering time to identify longer-term outcomes that can lead to more realistic interpretations of impact rather than if the project had been assessed immediately after closure. The event of the multi-year drought, in tandem with continuing erratic rainfall and the loss of support from farmer-oriented public programs, further allows for assessment of the ability of the project to make beneficiaries resilient to drought and economic shocks.

The quantitative portion of the evaluation was primarily used for measurement of impact and consisted of two main instruments: a household-level questionnaire and a community-level questionnaire. These instruments covered a range of modules in order to estimate the multi-faceted aspects of welfare. In particular, the household questionnaire focused on agricultural production, agricultural sales, other income sources such as employment or government assistance, and consumption. Additionally, it included modules on assets, shocks, and migration in order to assess any wealth accumulation, exposure to shocks, and coping strategies. Given that the project placed emphasis on increasing women's leadership and decision-making, an abridged version of the Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI), known as the Project WEAI (Pro-WEAI) was fielded to collect data on indicators that comparatively assess agency and empowerment of male and female decision-makers in a household.

The community questionnaire focused on services that are available to the community and relevant institutions such local infrastructure, economic activities, and access to services. The community questionnaire identified levels of community agency and resilience by asking about recent shocks, coping strategies, and collective action to promote local development. Because the project baseline was incomplete, project baseline data was not used, and respondents were asked to recall levels of assets owned at a reference period pre-GDV in both the community and household questionnaires.

Note: some variables have missing labels. Please, refer to the questionnaire for more details.

Replication data for: Hawes, Daniel P., and Austin M. McCrea. Forthcoming. "Give Us Your Tired, Your Poor and We Might Buy Them Dinner: Social Capital, Immigration and Welfare Generosity in the American States." Political Research Quarterly.

In 2023, **** percent of Black people living in the United States were living below the poverty line, compared to *** percent of white people. That year, the total poverty rate in the U.S. across all races and ethnicities was **** percent. Poverty in the United States Single people in the United States making less than ****** U.S. dollars a year and families of four making less than ****** U.S. dollars a year are considered to be below the poverty line. Women and children are more likely to suffer from poverty, due to women staying home more often than men to take care of children, and women suffering from the gender wage gap. Not only are women and children more likely to be affected, racial minorities are as well due to the discrimination they face. Poverty data Despite being one of the wealthiest nations in the world, the United States had the third highest poverty rate out of all OECD countries in 2019. However, the United States' poverty rate has been fluctuating since 1990, but has been decreasing since 2014. The average median household income in the U.S. has remained somewhat consistent since 1990, but has recently increased since 2014 until a slight decrease in 2020, potentially due to the pandemic. The state that had the highest number of people living below the poverty line in 2020 was California.

In the first quarter of 2024, almost two-thirds percent of the total wealth in the United States was owned by the top 10 percent of earners. In comparison, the lowest 50 percent of earners only owned 2.5 percent of the total wealth. Income inequality in the U.S. Despite the idea that the United States is a country where hard work and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps will inevitably lead to success, this is often not the case. In 2023, 7.4 percent of U.S. households had an annual income under 15,000 U.S. dollars. With such a small percentage of people in the United States owning such a vast majority of the country’s wealth, the gap between the rich and poor in America remains stark. The top one percent The United States follows closely behind China as the country with the most billionaires in the world. Elon Musk alone held around 219 billion U.S. dollars in 2022. Over the past 50 years, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio has exploded, causing the gap between rich and poor to grow, with some economists theorizing that this gap is the largest it has been since right before the Great Depression.

This statistic shows the median household income in the United States from 1990 to 2023 in 2023 U.S. dollars. The median household income was 80,610 U.S. dollars in 2023, an increase from the previous year. Household incomeThe median household income depicts the income of households, including the income of the householder and all other individuals aged 15 years or over living in the household. Income includes wages and salaries, unemployment insurance, disability payments, child support payments received, regular rental receipts, as well as any personal business, investment, or other kinds of income received routinely. The median household income in the United States varies from state to state. In 2020, the median household income was 86,725 U.S. dollars in Massachusetts, while the median household income in Mississippi was approximately 44,966 U.S. dollars at that time. Household income is also used to determine the poverty line in the United States. In 2021, about 11.6 percent of the U.S. population was living in poverty. The child poverty rate, which represents people under the age of 18 living in poverty, has been growing steadily over the first decade since the turn of the century, from 16.2 percent of the children living below the poverty line in year 2000 to 22 percent in 2010. In 2021, it had lowered to 15.3 percent. The state with the widest gap between the rich and the poor was New York, with a Gini coefficient score of 0.51 in 2019. The Gini coefficient is calculated by looking at average income rates. A score of zero would reflect perfect income equality and a score of one indicates a society where one person would have all the money and all other people have nothing.

In 2023, 15.4 percent of Black families were living below the poverty line in the United States. Poverty is the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money. Absolute poverty or destitution is inability to afford basic human needs, which commonly includes clean and fresh water, nutrition, health care, education, clothing, and shelter.