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.

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.

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.

In 2023, Wildwood-The Villages metropolitan area in Florida was ranked first, with 39.3 percent of its population aged under 18 years living below the poverty level. McAllen-Edinburg-Mission metro area in Texas had the second-highest rate of child poverty in the nation.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR
Poverty (EQ5)

FULL MEASURE NAME
The share of the population living in households that earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty limit

LAST UPDATED
January 2023

DESCRIPTION
Poverty refers to the share of the population living in households that earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty limit, which varies based on the number of individuals in a given household. It reflects the number of individuals who are economically struggling due to low household income levels.

DATA SOURCE
U.S Census Bureau: Decennial Census - http://www.nhgis.org
1980-2000

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey - https://data.census.gov/
2007-2021
Form C17002

CONTACT INFORMATION
vitalsigns.info@mtc.ca.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator)
The U.S. Census Bureau defines a national poverty level (or household income) that varies by household size, number of children in a household, and age of householder. The national poverty level does not vary geographically even though cost of living is different across the United States. For the Bay Area, where cost of living is high and incomes are correspondingly high, an appropriate poverty level is 200% of poverty or twice the national poverty level, consistent with what was used for past equity work at MTC and ABAG. For comparison, however, both the national and 200% poverty levels are presented.

For Vital Signs, the poverty rate is defined as the number of people (including children) living below twice the poverty level divided by the number of people for whom poverty status is determined. The household income definitions for poverty change each year to reflect inflation. The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or non-cash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid and food stamps).

For the national poverty level definitions by year, see: US Census Bureau Poverty Thresholds - https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html.

For an explanation on how the Census Bureau measures poverty, see: How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty - https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html.

American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year data is used for larger geographies – Bay counties and most metropolitan area counties – while smaller geographies rely upon 5-year rolling average data due to their smaller sample sizes. Note that 2020 data uses the 5-year estimates because the ACS did not collect 1-year data for 2020.

To be consistent across metropolitan areas, the poverty definition for non-Bay Area metros is twice the national poverty level. Data were not adjusted for varying income and cost of living levels across the metropolitan areas.

In 2021, New York city had the highest number of people living below the poverty line, with 1.4 million people living in poverty. This is significantly higher than any of the other most populated cities.

Poverty Status by Town reports the number and percentage of people and children living in poverty, by race/ethnicity and age range.

In 2024, around 18.7 percent of residents in Bremen were at risk of living in poverty. This list shows the 15 cities in Germany with the highest at-risk-of-poverty rates.

This layer shows poverty status by age group. Data is from US Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates.This layer is symbolized to show the percentage of the population whose income falls below the Federal poverty line. To see the full list of attributes available in this service, go to the "Data" tab, and choose "Fields" at the top right (in ArcGIS Online). To view only the census tracts that are predominantly in Tempe, add the expression City is Tempe in the map filter settings.A ‘Null’ entry in the estimate indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small (per the U.S. Census).Vintage: 2017-2021ACS Table(s): B17020 (Not all lines of these ACS tables are available in this feature layer.)Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey Data Preparation: Data curated from Esri Living Atlas clipped to Census Tract boundaries that are within or adjacent to the City of Tempe boundaryDate of Census update: December 8, 2022National Figures: data.census.govAdditional Census data notes and data processing notes are available at the Esri Living Atlas Layer:https://tempegov.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=0e468b75bca545ee8dc4b039cbb5aff6 (Esri's Living Atlas always shows latest data)

This report was written in collaboration between the Mayor's Office of Innovation and the Rochester Monroe Anti-Poverty Initiative (RMAPI) and released in December 2019. Executive SummaryThe Rochester Monroe Anti-Poverty Initiative (RMAPI) has selected single female headed households with children as one of its key target populations in which to focus strategy and its next phase of initiatives. This report is intended to provide additional insight on this population to support the next phase of RMAPI’s strategic planning as well as broader advocacy efforts on behalf of this population.

We begin with a brief summary of historic policy and societal factors known to have contributed to the current day inequities, written in collaboration with content experts from RMAPI.

The core of this report is a fact sheet based on analysis of US Census data. Major findings include:

Finding 1: Families headed by unmarried parents are a significant segment of the city population and account for the majority of individuals living below the poverty level in the city.

Finding 2: Unmarried households with children experience lower incomes, lower rates of home ownership, and higher rent burdens compared to their married counterparts

Finding 3: Women and people of color are overrepresented among the heads of unmarried households with children.

Finding 4: Four in ten unmarried householders with children have less than a high school education. Nearly 80 percent of those without a high school education are in poverty.

Finding 5: Unmarried householders with children in poverty are more likely to be disabled or face other common barriers to employment.

Finding 6: The more adults present in unmarried households with children, the less likely that household is to be in poverty. This trend amplifies when considering the number of employed adults.

Finding 7: Unmarried parents under age 40 head the majority of all households with children in Rochester. Younger householders correlate with higher poverty rates regardless of marriage status.

Finding 8: A birth before age 20, being unmarried, and having not completed high school education are three factors that, when compounded, are associated with poor economic outcomes.

Finding 9: The highest densities of unmarried householders with children are clustered in the highest poverty neighborhoods in the city of Rochester

We end with a discussion of the gaps in available data, acknowledging that there is room for further investigation and interpretation, data collection, and insights. We recommend readers to think critically about what is presented and how it might impact their own work in poverty reduction efforts. We present a series of questions that are a jumping off point for new inquiry and reflection. Methodology can be found in the Appendix.

Data Source:2017 Census American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Public Microdata SampleData and documentation can be accessed here:https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data/pums.html

This table contains data on the percentage of the total population living below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), and the percentage of children living below 200% FPL for California, its regions, counties, cities, towns, public use microdata areas, and census tracts. Data for time periods 2011-2015 (overall poverty) and 2012-2016 (child poverty) and with race/ethnicity stratification is included in the table. The poverty rate table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity. Poverty is an important social determinant of health (see http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/overview.aspx?topicid=39) that can impact people’s access to basic necessities (housing, food, education, jobs, and transportation), and is associated with higher incidence and prevalence of illness, and with reduced access to quality health care. More information on the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the About/Attachments section.

In this study of high-poverty counties in the USA, we used a unique and validated measure of population well-being, the Gallup-Sharecare Well-being Index. We described high-poverty counties with high and low well-being using 29 characteristics from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation County Health Rankings and Roadmaps, a well-established model of population health. Our study examined associations by county, due to lack of well-being data at the city or neighbourhood level, and both poverty and well-being are likely to be heterogeneous at the county level.

News that Cleveland’s poverty rate is the worst in the nation—and rising—has elevated the community’s concern about conditions in the city. But a closer look at the way poverty rates are calculated suggests that all the possible causes of Cleveland’s ranking have not been fully understood.

Not only has poverty recently increased in the United States, it has also become more concentrated. This Commentary documents changes in the concentration of poverty in metropolitan areas over the last decade. The analysis shows that the concentration of poverty tends to be highest in northern cities, and that wherever overall poverty or unemployment rates went up the most over the course of the decade, the concentration of poverty tended to increase there as well.

The municipalities of Manapiare and Bolívar, located in the Venezuelan states of Amazonas and Falcón, respectively, registered the highest share of population living under the poverty line in the country in 2021. That year, almost the entire population of these municipalities was reported to be living in poverty. All the 25 Venezuelan cities listed in this statistic had at least 99.7 percent of their population living under the poverty line.

This layer shows poverty status by age group. Data is from US Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates.This layer is symbolized to show the percentage of the population whose income falls below the Federal poverty line. To see the full list of attributes available in this service, go to the "Data" tab, and choose "Fields" at the top right (in ArcGIS Online). To view only the census tracts that are predominantly in Tempe, add the expression City is Tempe in the map filter settings.A ‘Null’ entry in the estimate indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small (per the U.S. Census).Vintage: 2016-2020ACS Table(s): B17020 (Not all lines of these ACS tables are available in this feature layer.)Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey Data Preparation: Data curated from Esri Living Atlas clipped to Census Tract boundaries that are within or adjacent to the City of Tempe boundaryDate of Census update: March 17, 2022National Figures: data.census.govAdditional Census data notes and data processing notes are available at the Esri Living Atlas Layer:https://tempegov.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=0e468b75bca545ee8dc4b039cbb5aff6 (Esri's Living Atlas always shows latest data)

Percent of Population Below the Poverty Level (5-year estimate) in Yakutat City and Borough, AK was 7.80% in January of 2023, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, Percent of Population Below the Poverty Level (5-year estimate) in Yakutat City and Borough, AK reached a record high of 10.00 in January of 2022 and a record low of 3.30 in January of 2012. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Percent of Population Below the Poverty Level (5-year estimate) in Yakutat City and Borough, AK - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on November of 2025.

Tabular data of population by age groups, race and gender, and the poverty by race is attached to the split tract geography to create this split tract with population and poverty data. Split tract data is the product of 2020 census tracts split by 2021 incorporated city boundaries and unincorporated community/countywide statistical areas (CSA) boundaries. The census tract boundaries have been altered and aligned where necessary with legal city boundaries and unincorporated areas, including shoreline/coastal areas. Census Tract:Every 10 years the Census Bureau counts the population of the United States as mandated by Constitution. The Census Bureau (https://www.census.gov/) released 2020 geographic boundaries data including census tracts for the analysis and mapping of demographic information across the United States. City Boundary:City Boundary data is the base map information for the County of Los Angeles. These City Boundaries are based on the Los Angeles County Seamless Cadastral Landbase. The Landbase is jointly maintained by the Los Angeles County Assessor and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DPW). This layer represents current city boundaries within Los Angeles County. The DPW provides the most current shapefiles representing city boundaries and city annexations. True, legal boundaries are only determined on the ground by surveyors licensed in the State of California.Countywide Statistical Areas (CSA): The countywide Statistical Area (CSA) was defined to provide a common geographic boundary for reporting departmental statistics for unincorporated areas and incorporated Los Angeles city to the Board of Supervisors. The CSA boundary and CSA names are established by the CIO and the LA County Enterprise GIS group worked with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Unincorporated Area and Field Deputies that reflect as best as possible the general name preferences of residents and historical names of areas. This data is primarily focused on broad statistics and reporting, not mapping of communities. This data is not designed to perfectly represent communities, nor jurisdictional boundaries such as Angeles National Forest. CSA represent board approved geographies comprised of Census block groups split by cities.Data Field:CT20: 2020 Census tractFIP21: 2021 City FIP CodeCITY: City name for incorporated cities and “Unincorporated” for unincorporated areas (as of July 1, 2021) CSA: Countywide Statistical Area (CSA) - Unincorporated area community names and LA City neighborhood names.CT20FIP21CSA: 2020 census tract with 2021 city FIPs for incorporated cities, unincorporated areas and LA neighborhoods. SPA22: 2022 Service Planning Area (SPA) number.SPA_NAME: Service Planning Area name.HD22: 2022 Health District (HD) number: HD_NAME: Health District name.POP21_AGE_0_4: 2021 population 0 to 4 years oldPOP21_AGE_5_9: 2021 population 5 to 9 years old POP21_AGE_10_14: 2021 population 10 to 14 years old POP21_AGE_15_17: 2021 population 15 to 17 years old POP21_AGE_18_19: 2021 population 18 to 19 years old POP21_AGE_20_44: 2021 population 20 to 24 years old POP21_AGE_25_29: 2021 population 25 to 29 years old POP21_AGE_30_34: 2021 population 30 to 34 years old POP21_AGE_35_44: 2021 population 35 to 44 years old POP21_AGE_45_54: 2021 population 45 to 54 years old POP21_AGE_55_64: 2021 population 55 to 64 years old POP21_AGE_65_74: 2021 population 65 to 74 years old POP21_AGE_75_84: 2021 population 75 to 84 years old POP21_AGE_85_100: 2021 population 85 years and older POP21_WHITE: 2021 Non-Hispanic White POP21_BLACK: 2021 Non-Hispanic African AmericanPOP21_AIAN: 2021 Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska NativePOP21_ASIAN: 2021 Non-Hispanic Asian POP21_HNPI: 2021 Non-Hispanic Hawaiian Native or Pacific IslanderPOP21_HISPANIC: 2021 HispanicPOP21_MALE: 2021 Male POP21_FEMALE: 2021 Female POV21_WHITE: 2021 Non-Hispanic White below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV21_BLACK: 2021 Non-Hispanic African American below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV21_AIAN: 2021 Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV21_ASIAN: 2021 Non-Hispanic Asian below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV21_HNPI: 2021 Non-Hispanic Hawaiian Native or Pacific Islander below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV21_HISPANIC: 2021 Hispanic below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV21_TOTAL: 2021 Total population below 100% Federal Poverty Level POP21_TOTAL: 2021 Total PopulationAREA_SQMIL: Area in square milePOP21_DENSITY: Population per square mile.POV21_PERCENT: Poverty percentage.How this data created?The tabular data of population by age groups, by ethnic groups and by gender, and the poverty by ethnic groups is attributed to the split tract geography to create this data. Split tract polygon data is created by intersecting 2020 census tract polygons, LA Country City Boundary polygons and Countywide Statistical Areas (CSA) polygon data. The resulting polygon boundary aligned and matched with the legal city boundary whenever possible. Note:1. Population and poverty data estimated as of July 1, 2021. 2. 2010 Census tract and 2020 census tracts are not the same. Similarly, city and community boundary are not the same because boundary is reviewed and updated annually.

Note: These layers were compiled by Esri's Demographics Team using data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. These data sets are not owned by the City of Rochester.Overview of the map/data: This map shows the percentage of the population living below the federal poverty level over the previous 12 months, shown by tract, county, and state boundaries. Estimates are from the 2018 ACS 5-year samples. This service is updated annually to contain the most currently released American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data, and contains estimates and margins of error. There are also additional calculated attributes related to this topic, which can be mapped or used within analysis. Current Vintage: 2019-2023ACS Table(s): B17020, C17002Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey Date of API call: December 12, 2024National Figures: data.census.govThe United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS):About the SurveyGeography & ACSTechnical DocumentationNews & UpdatesThis ready-to-use layer can be used within ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online, its configurable apps, dashboards, Story Maps, custom apps, and mobile apps. Data can also be exported for offline workflows. Please cite the Census and ACS when using this data.Data Note from the Census:Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.Data Processing Notes:This layer will be updated automatically when the most current vintage of ACS data is released each year, usually in December. The layer always contains the latest available ACS 5-year estimates. It is updated annually within days of the Census Bureau's release schedule. Click here to learn more about ACS data releases.Boundaries come from the US Census TIGER geodatabases. Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates (annually), and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines clipped for cartographic purposes. For census tracts, the water cutouts are derived from a subset of the 2010 AWATER (Area Water) boundaries offered by TIGER. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters). The States layer contains 52 records - all US states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico.Census tracts with no population are removed from this data service (Census Tracts beginning with 99).Percentages and derived counts, and associated margins of error, are calculated values (that can be identified by the "_calc_" stub in the field name), and abide by the specifications defined by the American Community Survey.Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells file available from the American Community Survey Summary File Documentation page.Negative values (e.g., -555555...) have been set to null. These negative values exist in the raw API data to indicate the following situations:The margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.Either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution, or in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.The estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.The data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small. NOTE: any calculated percentages or counts that contain estimates that have null margins of error yield null margins of error for the calculated fields.

This is a re-symbolization of the data found here: https://dallasgis.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=6fc65a96d79944e093a04cd507a25a34 It allows for a quick look at the poverty rates in and around zipcodes in the Dallas Metro area.The census tract data was obtained for the state of Texas from the Census Bureau's TIGER/Line files and clipped to City of Dallas boundaries. Table S1701 (Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months)ZipCodes: https://dallasgis.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=aca3ce05245c460f88fd7d77be09749e The Postal Service does not publish ZIP codes as you would think of them in a polygonal format. They are merely a collection of carrier routes. Zipcode Mapping is at best an approximation of the carrier routes, and subject to change without notice.National ZipCodes: https://dallasgis.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=0a2fde8aa7404187917488bafcbc77e6