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 U.S., the share of the population living in poverty fluctuated significantly throughout the six decades between 1987 and 2023. In 2023, the poverty level across all races and ethnicities was 11.1 percent. Black Americans have been the ethnic group with the highest share of their population living in poverty almost every year since 1974. In 1979 alone, Black poverty was well over double the national average, and over four times the poverty rate in white communities; in 1982, almost 48 percent of the Black population lived in poverty. Although poverty rates have been trending downward across all ethnic groups, 17.8 percent of Black Americans and 18.9 percent of American Indian and Alaskan Natives still lived below the poverty line in 2022.

The Census Bureau determines that a person is living in poverty when his or her total household income compared with the size and composition of the household is below the poverty threshold. The Census Bureau uses the federal government's official definition of poverty to determine the poverty threshold. Beginning in 2000, individuals were presented with the option to select one or more races. In addition, the Census asked individuals to identify their race separately from identifying their Hispanic origin. The Census has published individual tables for the races and ethnicities provided as supplemental information to the main table that does not dissaggregate by race or ethnicity. Race categories include the following - White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Some other race, and Two or more races. We are not including specific combinations of two or more races as the counts of these combinations are small. Ethnic categories include - Hispanic or Latino and White Non-Hispanic. This data comes from the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year estimates, table B17001. The ACS collects these data from a sample of households on a rolling monthly basis. ACS aggregates samples into one-, three-, or five-year periods. CTdata.org generally carries the five-year datasets, as they are considered to be the most accurate, especially for geographic areas that are the size of a county or smaller.Poverty status determined is the denominator for the poverty rate. It is the population for which poverty status was determined so when poverty is calculated they exclude institutionalized people, people in military group quarters, people in college dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years of age.Below poverty level are households as determined by the thresholds based on the criteria of looking at household size, Below poverty level are households as determined by the thresholds based on the criteria of looking at household size, number of children, and age of householder.number of children, and age of householder.

Between 2019 and 2023, people living in households in the Asian and ‘Other’ ethnic groups were most likely to be in persistent low income before and after housing costs

The Census Bureau determines that a person is living in poverty when his or her total household income compared with the size and composition of the household is below the poverty threshold. The Census Bureau uses the federal government's official definition of poverty to determine the poverty threshold. Beginning in 2000, individuals were presented with the option to select one or more races. In addition, the Census asked individuals to identify their race separately from identifying their Hispanic origin. The Census has published individual tables for the races and ethnicities provided as supplemental information to the main table that does not dissaggregate by race or ethnicity. Race categories include the following - White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Some other race, and Two or more races. We are not including specific combinations of two or more races as the counts of these combinations are small. Ethnic categories include - Hispanic or Latino and White Non-Hispanic. This data comes from the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year estimates, table B17001. The ACS collects these data from a sample of households on a rolling monthly basis. ACS aggregates samples into one-, three-, or five-year periods. CTdata.org generally carries the five-year datasets, as they are considered to be the most accurate, especially for geographic areas that are the size of a county or smaller.Poverty status determined is the denominator for the poverty rate. It is the population for which poverty status was determined so when poverty is calculated they exclude institutionalized people, people in military group quarters, people in college dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years of age.Below poverty level are households as determined by the thresholds based on the criteria of looking at household size, Below poverty level are households as determined by the thresholds based on the criteria of looking at household size, number of children, and age of householder.number of children, and age of householder.

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.

Link to this report's codebookUnfulfilled Promise of Racial EqualityUS states unequally distribute resources, services, and opportunities by raceThe US is failing to deliver on its promise of racial equality. While the US founding documents assert that ‘all men are created equal,’ this value is not demonstrated in outcomes across areas as diverse and varied as education, justice, health, gender, and pollution. On average, white communities receive resources and services at a rate approximately three times higher, than the least-served racial community (data on Asian, Black, Indigenous, Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, Hispanic, Multiracial and ‘Other’ racial communities, were used as available). Evidence shows that unequal treatment impacts each of these communities, however, it is most often Black and Indigenous communities that are left the furthest behind. When states are scored on how well they deliver the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to the racial group least served, no state is even halfway to achieving the SDGs by 2030 (see Figure 1). To learn more about the Sustainable Development Goals, see the section “SDGs & Accountability.”One example of this inequality is in life expectancy. In Figure 2, the scatter plot on the left demonstrates a pattern in which Black and Indigenous communities, represented by orange and green dots closest to the bottom of the graph, are consistently the communities with least access to years of life. In the graph on the right, each box represents a racial population in a specific state, the boxes are organized from left to right, lowest to highest, according to the life expectancy for that group and state. The graph shows how large the gap is in life expectancy across racial communities and states, with green and orange boxes, representing Indigenous and Black communities respectively, clustered to the left of the graph.Patterns like this one, demonstrating both deep and wide racial inequalities, occur across the 51 indicators this analysis includes, covering 12 of 17 SDGs. In a similar example (Figure 3), a pattern emerges where white students are least likely to attend a school where 75 percent or more of its students receive free or reduced cost lunch when compared to all other racial groups. In the most unequal state, North Dakota, Indigenous students attend high poverty schools at a rate 42 times higher than white students. As Figure 3 shows, although the percentage of students from the least served racial group attending high poverty schools ranges from 2 percent in Vermont to 73 percent in Mississippi, the group least served, represented by the dots closest to the top of the graph, are most often Hispanic and Indigenous communities.Lack of Racial DataMore, and better, racially and ethnically disaggregated data are needed to assess delivery of racial equalityA significant barrier to evaluating progress is the unavailability of racial data across all areas of measurement. For too many important topic areas, such as food insecurity, maternal mortality and lead in drinking water, there is no racial data available at the state level. Even in the areas where there is some racial data, it is often not available for all groups (see Figure 4). Particularly missing, were measures of environmental justice; in Goals focusing on Water, Clean Energy, and Life on Land (Goals 6, 7, and 15), racial data was not found for any indicators, despite the fact that there is research indicating that clean water, for example, is unequally distributed across racial groups. The reasons for these gaps vary. For some indicators, data is not tracked through a nationally organized database, for other indicators, the data is old and out of date, and in many cases, surveys are not large enough to disaggregate by race. As was made clear with the disparate impacts of COVID-19 (for example, see CDC 2020), understanding to whom resources are being distributed has real life implications and is an important part of holding democratic institutions accountable to promises of equality.People are often left behind due to a combination of intersecting identities and factors; they remain hidden in averages. Evaluating the Leave No One Behind Agenda through the lens of gender, ability, class and other identities are undoubtedly important and urgent. Disaggregating data along two axes such as race and location—is revealing. But an even more refined analysis using multilevel disaggregation, such as looking at women and race in urban settings, would likely reveal even starker inequalities. Those are not included here and are important areas for future work. Other areas for further exploration include the use of longitudinal data to understand how these inequalities are changing over time.Though the full extent of this unequal treatment is unknown, this analysis sheds some light on the clouded story told by state averages. Whole group averages leave out important information, particularly about inequality. Racially disaggregated data is essential for holding governments accountable to the promise of racial equity. Without it, it is too easy to hide who is being excluded and left behind.SDGs and AccountabilitySDGs and AccountabilityThe SDGs can be an accountability tool to address racial inequality. This would not be the first time UN frameworks have been used to call attention to racial inequality in the US. In 1951, the Civil Rights Congress (CRC) led by William L. Patterson and Paul Robeson put a petition to the UN, named: “We Charge Genocide,” which charged that the United States government was in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Figure 5). While this attempt did not succeed in charging the US government with genocide, it is a central example of how international instruments can be used to apply localized pressure to advance civil rights.All 193 member countries of the UN, including the United States, signed on to the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015, to be achieved by 2030. The Goals cover 17 wide-ranging topics, with 169 specific targets for action (Figure 6). The first agenda of the SDGs, the Leave No One Behind Agenda (LNOB), requires that those left furthest behind by governments must have the SDGs delivered to them first. The results of this project demonstrate that in a US-context, those left furthest behind would undoubtedly include Asian, Black, Indigenous, Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, Hispanic, Multiracial and ‘Other’ racial communities. The SDGs can offer a template for US states attempting to deliver on their promise of racial equality. The broad topic areas covered by the SDGs, in combination with the Leave No One Behind agenda, can be a tool to hold states accountable for addressing racial inequalities when and through developing solutions for clean water, quality education, ending hunger, delivering justice and more. This highlights an important implication of the Leave No One Behind Agenda, it is not meant to pit communities against each other, but rather to remind us how much everyone has to gain by building and advocating for sustainable communities that serve us all.Explore ResultsExplore the data from the In the Red: the US failure to deliver on a promise of racial equality in our interactive dashboards.These maps display how US states are delivering sustainability across different racial and ethnic groups. As part of the Leave No One Behind Agenda, which maintains that those who have been least served by development progress must be those first addressed through the SDGs, progress toward the goals in each state is displayed based on the racial group with the least access to resources, programs, and services in that state. In other words, the “Overall scores’’ map shows the score for the racial group least served in each state. Click on a state to toggle through the state’s performance by different SDGs, and click on an indicator to view how a state performs on a given indicator. At the indicator level, horizontal bar charts show the racial disparity in the selected indicator and state, when data is available.AboutIn the Red: the US Failure to Deliver on a Promise of Racial EqualityIn the Red: the US Failure to Deliver on a Promise of Racial Equality project highlights measurable gaps in how states deliver sustainability to different racial groups. The full report can be read here. It extends an earlier report, Never More Urgent, looking at policies and practices that have led to the inequalities described in this project. It was prepared by a group of independent experts at SDSN and Howard University.UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN)The UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) mobilizes scientific and technical expertise from academia, civil society, and the private sector to support practical problem solving for sustainable development at local, national, and global scales. The SDSN has been operating since 2012 under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. The SDSN is building national and regional networks of knowledge institutions, solution-focused thematic networks, and the SDG Academy, an online university for sustainable development.SDSN USASDSN USA is a network of 150+ research institutions across the United States and unincorporated territories. The network builds pathways toward achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the United States by mobilizing research, outreach, collective action, and global cooperation. SDSN USA is one of more than 40 national and regional SDSN networks globally. It is hosted by the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) in New York City, and is chaired by Professors Jeffrey Sachs (Columbia University), Helen Bond (Howard University), Dan Esty (Yale University), and Gordon McCord (UC San Diego).

In 2023 the poverty rate in the United States was highest among people between 18 and 24, with a rate of 16 percent for male Americans and a rate of 21 percent for female Americans. The lowest poverty rate for both men and women was for those aged between 45 and 54. What is the poverty line? The poverty line is a metric used by the U.S. Census Bureau to define poverty in the United States. It is a specific income level that is considered to be the bare minimum a person or family needs to meet their basic needs. If a family’s annual pre-tax income is below this income level, then they are considered impoverished. The poverty guideline for a family of four in 2021 was 26,500 U.S. dollars. Living below the poverty line According to the most recent data, almost one-fifth of African Americans in the United States live below the poverty line; the most out of any ethnic group. Additionally, over 7.42 million families in the U.S. live in poverty – a figure that has held mostly steady since 1990, outside the 2008 financial crisis which threw 9.52 million families into poverty by 2012. The poverty gender gap Wage inequality has been an ongoing discussion in U.S. discourse for many years now. The poverty gap for women is most pronounced during their child-bearing years, shrinks, and then grows again in old age. While progress has been made on the gender pay gap over the last 30 years, there are still significant disparities, even in occupations that predominantly employ men. Additionally, women are often having to spend more time attending to child and household duties than men.

In 2023, the prevalence of extreme poverty among black men and women in Brazil was higher than that observed in other demographic groups. In particular, the rate of extreme poverty among black men reached two percent, which was the highest among all demographic groups.

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 2010 census tracts split by 2015 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 2010 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:CT10: 2010 Census tractFIP15: 2015 City FIP CodeCITY: City name for incorporated cities and “Unincorporated” for unincorporated areas (as of July 1, 2015) CT10FIP15: 2010 census tract with 2015 city FIPs for incorporated cities and unincorporated areas. SPA12: 2012 Service Planning Area (SPA) number.SPA_NAME: Service Planning Area name.HD12: 2012 Health District (HD) number: HD_NAME: Health District name.POP15_AGE_0_4: 2015 population 0 to 4 years oldPOP15_AGE_5_9: 2015 population 5 to 9 years old POP15_AGE_10_14: 2015 population 10 to 14 years old POP15_AGE_15_17: 2015 population 15 to 17 years old POP15_AGE_18_19: 2015 population 18 to 19 years old POP15_AGE_20_44: 2015 population 20 to 24 years old POP15_AGE_25_29: 2015 population 25 to 29 years old POP15_AGE_30_34: 2015 population 30 to 34 years old POP15_AGE_35_44: 2015 population 35 to 44 years old POP15_AGE_45_54: 2015 population 45 to 54 years old POP15_AGE_55_64: 2015 population 55 to 64 years old POP15_AGE_65_74: 2015 population 65 to 74 years old POP15_AGE_75_84: 2015 population 75 to 84 years old POP15_AGE_85_100: 2015 population 85 years and older POP15_WHITE: 2015 Non-Hispanic White POP15_BLACK: 2015 Non-Hispanic African AmericanPOP15_AIAN: 2015 Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska NativePOP15_ASIAN: 2015 Non-Hispanic Asian POP15_HNPI: 2015 Non-Hispanic Hawaiian Native or Pacific IslanderPOP15_HISPANIC: 2015 HispanicPOP15_MALE: 2015 Male POP15_FEMALE: 2015 Female POV15_WHITE: 2015 Non-Hispanic White below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV15_BLACK: 2015 Non-Hispanic African American below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV15_AIAN: 2015 Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV15_ASIAN: 2015 Non-Hispanic Asian below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV15_HNPI: 2015 Non-Hispanic Hawaiian Native or Pacific Islander below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV15_HISPANIC: 2015 Hispanic below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV15_TOTAL: 2015 Total population below 100% Federal Poverty Level POP15_TOTAL: 2015 Total PopulationAREA_SQMIL: Area in square milePOP15_DENSITY: Population per square mile.POV15_PERCENT: Poverty rate/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 2010 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, 2015. 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.

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 2010 census tracts split by 2017 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 2010 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:CT10: 2010 Census tractFIP17: 2017 City FIP CodeCITY: City name for incorporated cities and “Unincorporated” for unincorporated areas (as of July 1, 2017) CSA: Countywide Statistical Area (CSA) - Unincorporated area community names and LA City neighborhood names.CT10FIP17CSA: 2010 census tract with 2017 city FIPs for incorporated cities, unincorporated areas and LA neighborhoods. SPA12: 2012 Service Planning Area (SPA) number.SPA_NAME: Service Planning Area name.HD12: 2012 Health District (HD) number: HD_NAME: Health District name.POP17_AGE_0_4: 2017 population 0 to 4 years oldPOP17_AGE_5_9: 2017 population 5 to 9 years old POP17_AGE_10_14: 2017 population 10 to 14 years old POP17_AGE_15_17: 2017 population 15 to 17 years old POP17_AGE_18_19: 2017 population 18 to 19 years old POP17_AGE_20_44: 2017 population 20 to 24 years old POP17_AGE_25_29: 2017 population 25 to 29 years old POP17_AGE_30_34: 2017 population 30 to 34 years old POP17_AGE_35_44: 2017 population 35 to 44 years old POP17_AGE_45_54: 2017 population 45 to 54 years old POP17_AGE_55_64: 2017 population 55 to 64 years old POP17_AGE_65_74: 2017 population 65 to 74 years old POP17_AGE_75_84: 2017 population 75 to 84 years old POP17_AGE_85_100: 2017 population 85 years and older POP17_WHITE: 2017 Non-Hispanic White POP17_BLACK: 2017 Non-Hispanic African AmericanPOP17_AIAN: 2017 Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska NativePOP17_ASIAN: 2017 Non-Hispanic Asian POP17_HNPI: 2017 Non-Hispanic Hawaiian Native or Pacific IslanderPOP17_HISPANIC: 2017 HispanicPOP17_MALE: 2017 Male POP17_FEMALE: 2017 Female POV17_WHITE: 2017 Non-Hispanic White below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV17_BLACK: 2017 Non-Hispanic African American below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV17_AIAN: 2017 Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV17_ASIAN: 2017 Non-Hispanic Asian below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV17_HNPI: 2017 Non-Hispanic Hawaiian Native or Pacific Islander below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV17_HISPANIC: 2017 Hispanic below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV17_TOTAL: 2017 Total population below 100% Federal Poverty Level POP17_TOTAL: 2017 Total PopulationAREA_SQMIL: Area in square milePOP17_DENSITY: Population per square mile.POV17_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 2010 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, 2017. 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.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has revealed existing health inequalities in racial and ethnic minority groups in the US. This work investigates and quantifies the non-uniform effects of geographical location and other known risk factors on various ethnic groups during the COVID-19 pandemic at a national level. To quantify the geographical impact on various ethnic groups, we grouped all the states of the US. into four different regions (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West) and considered Non-Hispanic White (NHW), Non-Hispanic Black (NHB), Hispanic, Non-Hispanic Asian (NHA) as ethnic groups of our interest. Our analysis showed that infection and mortality among NHB and Hispanics are considerably higher than NHW. In particular, the COVID-19 infection rate in the Hispanic community was significantly higher than their population share, a phenomenon we observed across all regions in the US but is most prominent in the West. To gauge the differential impact of comorbidities on different ethnicities, we performed cross-sectional regression analyses of statewide data for COVID-19 infection and mortality for each ethnic group using advanced age, poverty, obesity, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes as risk factors. After removing the risk factors causing multicollinearity, poverty emerged as one of the independent risk factors in explaining mortality rates in NHW, NHB, and Hispanic communities. Moreover, for NHW and NHB groups, we found that obesity encapsulated the effect of several other comorbidities such as advanced age, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease. At the same time, advanced age was the most robust predictor of mortality in the Hispanic group. Our study quantifies the unique impact of various risk factors on different ethnic groups, explaining the ethnicity-specific differences observed in the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings could provide insight into focused public health strategies and interventions.

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 2010 census tracts split by 2019 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 2010 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:CT10: 2010 Census tractFIP19: 2019 City FIP CodeCITY: City name for incorporated cities and “Unincorporated” for unincorporated areas (as of July 1, 2019) CSA: Countywide Statistical Area (CSA) - Unincorporated area community names and LA City neighborhood names.CT10FIP19CSA: 2010 census tract with 2019 city FIPs for incorporated cities, unincorporated areas and LA neighborhoods. SPA12: 2012 Service Planning Area (SPA) number.SPA_NAME: Service Planning Area name.HD12: 2012 Health District (HD) number: HD_NAME: Health District name.POP19_AGE_0_4: 2019 population 0 to 4 years oldPOP19_AGE_5_9: 2019 population 5 to 9 years old POP19_AGE_10_14: 2019 population 10 to 14 years old POP19_AGE_15_17: 2019 population 15 to 17 years old POP19_AGE_18_19: 2019 population 18 to 19 years old POP19_AGE_20_44: 2019 population 20 to 24 years old POP19_AGE_25_29: 2019 population 25 to 29 years old POP19_AGE_30_34: 2019 population 30 to 34 years old POP19_AGE_35_44: 2019 population 35 to 44 years old POP19_AGE_45_54: 2019 population 45 to 54 years old POP19_AGE_55_64: 2019 population 55 to 64 years old POP19_AGE_65_74: 2019 population 65 to 74 years old POP19_AGE_75_84: 2019 population 75 to 84 years old POP19_AGE_85_100: 2019 population 85 years and older POP19_WHITE: 2019 Non-Hispanic White POP19_BLACK: 2019 Non-Hispanic African AmericanPOP19_AIAN: 2019 Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska NativePOP19_ASIAN: 2019 Non-Hispanic Asian POP19_HNPI: 2019 Non-Hispanic Hawaiian Native or Pacific IslanderPOP19_HISPANIC: 2019 HispanicPOP19_MALE: 2019 Male POP19_FEMALE: 2019 Female POV19_WHITE: 2019 Non-Hispanic White below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV19_BLACK: 2019 Non-Hispanic African American below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV19_AIAN: 2019 Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV19_ASIAN: 2019 Non-Hispanic Asian below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV19_HNPI: 2019 Non-Hispanic Hawaiian Native or Pacific Islander below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV19_HISPANIC: 2019 Hispanic below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV19_TOTAL: 2019 Total population below 100% Federal Poverty Level POP19_TOTAL: 2019 Total PopulationAREA_SQMIL: Area in square milePOP19_DENSITY: Population per square mile.POV19_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 2010 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, 2019. 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.

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 2023 incorporated city boundaries and unincorporated community/countywide statistical areas (CSA) boundaries as of July 1, 2023. 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 Fields:CT20: 2020 Census tractFIP22: 2023 City FIP CodeCITY: City name for incorporated cities and “Unincorporated” for unincorporated areas (as of July 1, 2023) CSA: Countywide Statistical Area (CSA) - Unincorporated area community names and LA City neighborhood names.CT20FIP23CSA: 2020 census tract with 2023 city FIPs for incorporated cities and 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.POP23_AGE_0_4: 2023 population 0 to 4 years oldPOP23_AGE_5_9: 2023 population 5 to 9 years old POP23_AGE_10_14: 2023 population 10 to 14 years old POP23_AGE_15_17: 2022 population 15 to 17 years old POP23_AGE_18_19: 2023 population 18 to 19 years old POP23_AGE_20_44: 2023 population 20 to 24 years old POP23_AGE_25_29: 2023 population 25 to 29 years old POP23_AGE_30_34: 2023 population 30 to 34 years old POP23_AGE_35_44: 2023 population 35 to 44 years old POP23_AGE_45_54: 2023 population 45 to 54 years old POP23_AGE_55_64: 2023 population 55 to 64 years old POP23_AGE_65_74: 2023 population 65 to 74 years old POP23_AGE_75_84: 2023 population 75 to 84 years old POP23_AGE_85_100: 2023 population 85 years and older POP23_WHITE: 2023 Non-Hispanic White POP23_BLACK: 2023 Non-Hispanic African AmericanPOP23_AIAN: 2023 Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska NativePOP23_ASIAN: 2023 Non-Hispanic Asian POP23_HNPI: 2023 Non-Hispanic Hawaiian Native or Pacific IslanderPOP23_HISPANIC: 2023 HispanicPOP23_MALE: 2023 Male POP23_FEMALE: 2023 Female POV23_WHITE: 2023 Non-Hispanic White below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV23_BLACK: 2023 Non-Hispanic African American below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV23_AIAN: 2023 Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV23_ASIAN: 2023 Non-Hispanic Asian below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV23_HNPI: 2023 Non-Hispanic Hawaiian Native or Pacific Islander below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV23_HISPANIC: 2023 Hispanic below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV23_TOTAL: 2023 Total population below 100% Federal Poverty Level POP23_TOTAL: 2023 Total PopulationAREA_SQMil: Area in square mile.POP23_DENSITY: 2023 Population per square mile.POV23_PERCENT: 2023 Poverty rate/percentage.How this data created?Population by age groups, ethnic groups and 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. Notes:1. Population and poverty data estimated as of July 1, 2023. 2. 2010 Census tract and 2020 census tracts are not the same. Similarly, city and community boundaries are as of July 1, 2023.

Sources:2018-2022 ACS 5-year summary tables by Block Group, IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, www.nhgis.orgTables: Sex by Age: Total Population (B01001), Hispanic or Latino Origin by Race: Total Population (B03002), Hispanic or Latino Origin: Total Population (B03003), Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months of People in Housing Units: Population in households for whom poverty status is determined (B17101), Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2022 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars): Households (B19013), Household Language by Household Limited English Speaking Status: Households (C16002)FirstMap 2022 Land Use Land Cover, https://enterprise.firstmap.delaware.gov/arcgis/rest/services/PlanningCadastre/DE_LULC/FeatureServerDefinition Query: LULC_CATEGORY2022 = 'Multi-Family Dwellings' Or LULC_CATEGORY2022 = 'Single Family Dwellings' Or LULC_CATEGORY2022 = 'Mobile Home Parks/Courts' Or LULC_CATEGORY2022 = 'Mixed Urban or Built-up Land' Or LULC_CATEGORY2022 = 'Mixed Single and Multi-Family ResidentialDelDOT EFA Methodology:Census Block Group Process:Clipped the Census Block Groups to only include Residential Land Use polygonsUsed 2018-2022 ACS table data to calculate population percentagesIdentified Moderate and Significant EFAs using the following DelDOT EFA MethodologyAn Equity Focus Area is considered Moderate if one of the following situations is true:Percentage of Population in Poverty is greater than the State Average, AND at least 1 Racial and Ethnic Minority Group is greater than 3x the State Average, ORCombined Population Percentage of Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups is greater than 2x the State Average, OR- Percentage of Population in Poverty is greater than 2x the State Average, ORMHHI is less than or equal to $51,950 (65.49% of State MHHI), ORLanguage Isolation is greater than or equal to 15% & less than 25%An Equity Focus Area is considered Significant if one of the following situations is true:Percentage of Population in Poverty is greater than 2x the State Average, AND at least 1 Racial and Ethnic Minority Group is greater than 3x the State Average, ORCombined Population Percentage of Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups is greater than 90%, ORPercentage of Population in Poverty is greater than 3x the State Average, ORMHHI less than or equal to $31,730 (40.0% of State MHHI), ORLanguage Isolation is greater than or equal to 25%State Averages by Block Group: 2022 State MHHI ($79,325), Poverty (11.59%), Black or African American (20.89%), Hispanics or Latinos (9.75%), Two or More Races (3.57%), Asians (3.55%), Other Races (0.46%), American Indians (0.20%), Combined Racial/Ethnic Minorities (38.43%), Federal Poverty Level for a Family of 4 is $29,950

This data comes from the US Census Bureau and is illustrated by margin of error, percent, and rank of children in the US below the poverty level.

In the U.S., median household income rose from 51,570 U.S. dollars in 1967 to 80,610 dollars in 2023. In terms of broad ethnic groups, Black Americans have consistently had the lowest median income in the given years, while Asian Americans have the highest; median income in Asian American households has typically been around double that of Black Americans.

Poverty and low-income statistics by visible minority group, Indigenous group and immigration status, Canada and provinces.

Among Latin American countries in 2023, Colombia had the highest share of both Afro-descendants and indigenous people living impoverished, with 45.6 percent and 63.5 percent, respectively. Additionally, Colombia also had the highest share of indigenous people living under extreme poverty that year. Ecuador had the second-highest share of indigenous population whose average per capita income was below the poverty line, with 50.4 percent. Uruguay was the only nation where Afro-descendants were the ethnic group with the largest share of the poor population, as in the other selected countries such group was indigenous people.

While Vietnam has now reached lower middle-income country status, the gaps between the ethnic minority population and the majority group are evident and widening over time. In addition, ethnic minority groups are different in terms of where they are in these gaps. This study attempts to examine why and how certain ethnic groups have managed to rise to the ‘top’ as ‘best performers’ while the other groups seem to stand on the ‘bottom’ as ‘least performers. The key study questions are: (1) What are drivers of the socio-economic development of the different ethnic groups? (2) Why have some ethnic minority groups successfully managed to escape poverty while others have lagged far behind? (3) How have such factors have been addressed in the respective policies and designated programs or projects initiated by the Government of Vietnam, development partners, and other stakeholders? (3) What are the changes needed for future design and implementation of initiatives to support sustainable socio-economic development among ethnic minorities? This study adopts a mixed methodological approach, combining both quantitative and qualitative methods. In order to identify the top- and bottom-performing ethnic minorities, the 2015 Ethnic Minorities Socio-Economic Survey of 53 groups (53EMS) dataset was used to calculate the Human Development Index (HDI) and Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) as two indicators of socio-economic development of the ethnic minorities.