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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This poverty rate data shows what percentage of the measured population* falls below the poverty line. Poverty is closely related to income: different “poverty thresholds” are in place for different sizes and types of household. A family or individual is considered to be below the poverty line if that family or individual’s income falls below their relevant poverty threshold. For more information on how poverty is measured by the U.S. Census Bureau (the source for this indicator’s data), visit the U.S. Census Bureau’s poverty webpage.

The poverty rate is an important piece of information when evaluating an area’s economic health and well-being. The poverty rate can also be illustrative when considered in the contexts of other indicators and categories. As a piece of data, it is too important and too useful to omit from any indicator set.

The poverty rate for all individuals in the measured population in Champaign County has hovered around roughly 20% since 2005. However, it reached its lowest rate in 2021 at 14.9%, and its second lowest rate in 2023 at 16.3%. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) data shows fluctuations between years, given their margins of error, none of the differences between consecutive years’ estimates are statistically significant, making it impossible to identify a trend.

Poverty rate data was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, which are released annually.

As with any datasets that are estimates rather than exact counts, it is important to take into account the margins of error (listed in the column beside each figure) when drawing conclusions from the data.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because data is not available for Champaign County, no data for 2020 is included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes a dataset on Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Age.

*According to the U.S. Census Bureau document “How Poverty is Calculated in the ACS," poverty status is calculated for everyone but those in the following groups: “people living in institutional group quarters (such as prisons or nursing homes), people in military barracks, people in college dormitories, living situations without conventional housing, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old."

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (17 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (25 September 2023).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (16 September 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 September 2018).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (14 September 2017).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (19 September 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).

In 2023, around 27.4 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.

Bachelor's degree or higher Poverty Rate Statistics for 2022. This is part of a larger dataset covering poverty in McKee City, New Jersey by age, education, race, gender, work experience and more.

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.

The “richness index” represents the level of economical wellbeing a country certain area in 2010. Regions with higher income per capita and low poverty rate and more access to market are wealthier and are therefore better able to prepare for and respond to adversity. The index results from the second cluster of the Principal Component Analysis preformed among 9 potential variables. The analysis identifies four dominant variables, namely “GDPppp per capita”, “agriculture share GDP per agriculture sector worker”, “poverty rate” and “market accessibility”, assigning weights of 0.33, 0.26, 0.25 and 0.16, respectively. Before to perform the analysis all variables were log transformed (except the “agriculture share GDP per agriculture sector worker”) to shorten the extreme variation and then were score-standardized (converted to distribution with average of 0 and standard deviation of 1; inverse method was applied for the “poverty rate” and “market accessibility”) in order to be comparable. The 0.5 arc-minute grid total GDPppp is based on the night time light satellite imagery of NOAA (see Ghosh, T., Powell, R., Elvidge, C. D., Baugh, K. E., Sutton, P. C., & Anderson, S. (2010).Shedding light on the global distribution of economic activity. The Open Geography Journal (3), 148-161) and adjusted to national total as recorded by International Monetary Fund for 2010. The “GDPppp per capita” was calculated dividing the total GDPppp by the population in each pixel. Further, a focal statistic ran to determine mean values within 10 km. This had a smoothing effect and represents some of the extended influence of intense economic activity for the local people. Country based data for “agriculture share GDP per agriculture sector worker” were calculated from GDPppp (data from International Monetary Fund) fraction from agriculture activity (measured by World Bank) divided by the number of worker in the agriculture sector (data from World Bank). The tabular data represents the average of the period 2008-2012 and were linked by country unit to the national boundaries shapefile (FAO/GAUL) and then converted into raster format (resolution 0.5 arc-minute). The first administrative level data for the “poverty rate” were estimated by NOAA for 2003 using nighttime lights satellite imagery. Tabular data were linked by first administrative unit to the first administrative boundaries shapefile (FAO/GAUL) and then converted into raster format (resolution 0.5 arc-minute). The 0.5 arc-minute grid “market accessibility” measures the travel distance in minutes to large cities (with population greater than 50,000 people). This dataset was developed by the European Commission and the World Bank to represent access to markets, schools, hospitals, etc.. The dataset capture the connectivity and the concentration of economic activity (in 2000). Markets may be important for a variety of reasons, including their abilities to spread risk and increase incomes. Markets are a means of linking people both spatially and over time. That is, they allow shocks (and risks) to be spread over wider areas. In particular, markets should make households less vulnerable to (localized) covariate shocks. This dataset has been produced in the framework of the “Climate change predictions in Sub-Saharan Africa: impacts and adaptations (ClimAfrica)” project, Work Package 4 (WP4). More information on ClimAfrica project is provided in the Supplemental Information section of this metadata.

Data publication: 2014-05-15

Supplemental Information:

ClimAfrica was an international project funded by European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme (FP7) for the period 2010-2014. The ClimAfrica consortium was formed by 18 institutions, 9 from Europe, 8 from Africa, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations (FAO).

ClimAfrica was conceived to respond to the urgent international need for the most appropriate and up-to-date tools and methodologies to better understand and predict climate change, assess its impact on African ecosystems and population, and develop the correct adaptation strategies. Africa is probably the most vulnerable continent to climate change and climate variability and shows diverse range of agro-ecological and geographical features. Thus the impacts of climate change can be very high and can greatly differ across the continent, and even within countries.

The project focused on the following specific objectives:

1. Develop improved climate predictions on seasonal to decadal climatic scales, especially relevant to SSA;

2. Assess climate impacts in key sectors of SSA livelihood and economy, especially water resources and agriculture;

3. Evaluate the vulnerability of ecosystems and civil population to inter-annual variations and longer trends (10 years) in climate;

4. Suggest and analyse new suited adaptation strategies, focused on local needs;

5. Develop a new concept of 10 years monitoring and forecasting warning system, useful for food security, risk management and civil protection in SSA;

6. Analyse the economic impacts of climate change on agriculture and water resources in SSA and the cost-effectiveness of potential adaptation measures.

The work of ClimAfrica project was broken down into the following work packages (WPs) closely connected. All the activities described in WP1, WP2, WP3, WP4, WP5 consider the domain of the entire South Sahara Africa region. Only WP6 has a country specific (watershed) spatial scale where models validation and detailed processes analysis are carried out.

Contact points:

Metadata Contact: FAO-Data

Resource Contact: Selvaraju Ramasamy

Resource constraints:

copyright

Online resources:

Richness index (2010)

Project deliverable D4.1 - Scenarios of major production systems in Africa

Climafrica Website - Climate Change Predictions In Sub-Saharan Africa: Impacts And Adaptations

Bachelor's degree or higher Poverty Rate Statistics for 2022. This is part of a larger dataset covering poverty in Clay City, Kentucky by age, education, race, gender, work experience and more.

Less than high school graduate Poverty Rate Statistics for 2022. This is part of a larger dataset covering poverty in Queen City, Texas by age, education, race, gender, work experience and more.

Bachelor's degree or higher Poverty Rate Statistics for 2023. This is part of a larger dataset covering poverty in Missouri City, Texas by age, education, race, gender, work experience and more.

DeprecatedUpdated for PY-2023 (effective March 1, 2023, to September 30, 2024). Deprecated October 1, 2024.What does the data represent?These are named polygons that follow block group boundaries that contain 51% or greater low-to-moderate income persons as published by HUD from 2011-2015 ACS data. That data has been superseded by data developed from 2016-2020 ACS data by HUD and published at https://services.arcgis.com/VTyQ9soqVukalItT/ArcGIS/rest/services/LMISD_layers/FeatureServer/4. Target areas primarily served residential areas, and each target area ideally could self-identify as the named community.Where were they located?Target Areas of Harris County fit within the Harris County Service Area, which was the unincorporated land of Harris County, Texas plus then-cooperative cities. Any portions of otherwise qualified block groups that extended into non-service area were excluded from the target area. This prevented “double-dipping” community development resource entitlements.How accurate are they?Block group boundaries in Harris County follow visual cues such as roadways and streams. Census Bureau linework attempts to delineate these bounding features but they are seldom more accurate than within thirty feet of ground truth.Full-service city boundaries determine whether an incorporated area is within the Harris County Service Area or the non-service area. These are updated roughly quarterly in the Harris County GIS Repository layer managed by the Harris County Appraisal District. Target areas have been updated each year using this data from the late autumn to the end of each calendar year.When were they collected?When HCCSD updated the Service Area and Target Areas of Harris County in the latter part of each Program Year, it uses the current HUD LMISD dataset and HCAD full-service city boundaries to perform the update. HUD publishes an updated LMISD dataset every year, but the data HUD analyzes to create these updates only changes when an additional five-year period of American Community Survey data has accumulated. Therefore the survey data reported in the HUD LMISD were collected from 4 to 8 years prior (PY2019) to as much as 9 to 13 years prior to publishing the results (PY2023). Unless a local income survey was conducted more recently between one and four years ago, each Program Year’s target area boundaries reflect LMISD block group information collected at least four to as much as thirteen years ago.Who collected them?Harris County Community Services Department (HCCSD) collected and Harris County Housing & Community Development (HCHCD) maintains Harris County Service Area and Target Area information. As representative of one of the largest urban counties in the U.S. and the largest in Texas, the Highest Elected Official in Harris County has delegated HCHCD to implement HUD-assisted community development activities on unincorporated land and on behalf of the cooperative cities. Cooperative cities are generally those of insufficient size to become entitled to HUD funds on their own, i.e. less than 50,000 population. Through 9/30/2024 Harris County maintained agreements with 12 cooperative cities, including: Deer Park, Galena Park, Humble, Jacinto City, Katy, La Porte, Morgan's Point, Seabrook, Shoreacres, South Houston, Tomball, and Webster in PY2023. Tomball ended its agreement 9/30/2024, thereafter becoming part of the non-service area.

Less than high school graduate Poverty Rate Statistics for 2022. This is part of a larger dataset covering poverty in Lenoir City, Tennessee by age, education, race, gender, work experience and more.

This map shows demographic and income data in Detroit. Assuming an assignment where the poverty fighting charity I work for would like to alleviate suffering among impoverished children in Detroit. Detroit is a Michigan city that always ranks among America's poorest urban centers. Orange circles have below average median household income, the darker shades indicate households with a very low income-close to poverty level. The size of the circles: larger circles indicate a greater number of children in the area.What stands out is the obvioud pattern of low-income households in the city center combined with areas of high child population. This pattern helps answer where in Detroit our charity will focus its resources to help children living in poverty-in places shown on the map where there is a cluster of several large dark Orange circles like Dearborn and Pontiac (for example). The charity may and will offer free after school care and/Or but not limited to breakfast programs.

This dataset contains replication files for "The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment" by Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence Katz. For more information, see https://opportunityinsights.org/paper/newmto/. A summary of the related publication follows. There are large differences in individuals’ economic, health, and educational outcomes across neighborhoods in the United States. Motivated by these disparities, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development designed the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) experiment to determine whether providing low-income families assistance in moving to better neighborhoods could improve their economic and health outcomes. The MTO experiment was conducted between 1994 and 1998 in five large U.S. cities. Approximately 4,600 families living in high-poverty public housing projects were randomly assigned to one of three groups: an experimental voucher group that was offered a subsidized housing voucher that came with a requirement to move to a census tract with a poverty rate below 10%, a Section 8 voucher group that was offered a standard housing voucher with no additional contingencies, and a control group that was not offered a voucher (but retained access to public housing). Previous research on the MTO experiment has found that moving to lower-poverty areas greatly improved the mental and physical health of adults. However, prior work found no impacts of the MTO treatments on the earnings of adults and older youth, leading some to conclude that neighborhood environments are not an important component of economic success. In this study, we present a new analysis of the effect of the MTO experiment on children’s long-term outcomes. Our re-analysis is motivated by new research showing that a neighborhood’s effect on children’s outcomes may depend critically on the duration of exposure to that environment. In particular, Chetty and Hendren (2015) use quasi-experimental methods to show that every year spent in a better area during childhood increases a child’s earnings in adulthood, implying that the gains from moving to a better area are larger for children who are younger at the time of the move. In light of this new evidence on childhood exposure effects, we study the long-term impacts of MTO on children who were young when their families moved to better neighborhoods. Prior work has not been able to examine these issues because the younger children in the MTO experiment are only now old enough to be entering the adult labor market. For older children (those between ages 13-18), we find that moving to a lower-poverty neighborhood has a statistically insignificant or slightly negative effect. More generally, the gains from moving to lower-poverty areas decline steadily with the age of the child at the time of the move. We do not find any clear evidence of a “critical age” below which children must move to benefit from a better neighborhood. Rather, every extra year of childhood spent in a low-poverty environment appears to be beneficial, consistent with the findings of Chetty and Hendren (2015). The MTO treatments also had little or no impact on adults’ economic outcomes, consistent with previous results. Together, these studies show that childhood exposure plays a critical role in neighborhoods’ effects on economic outcomes. The experimental voucher increased the earnings of children who moved at young ages in all five experimental sites, for Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics, and for boys and girls. Perhaps most notably, we find robust evidence that the experimental voucher improved long-term outcomes for young boys, a subgroup where prior studies have found little evidence of gains. Our estimates imply that moving a child out of public housing to a low-poverty area when young (at age 8 on average) using a subsidized voucher like the MTO experimental voucher will increase the child’s total lifetime earnings by about $302,000. This is equivalent to a gain of $99,000 per child moved in present value at age 8, discounting future earnings at a 3% interest rate. The additional tax revenue generated from these earnings increases would itself offset the incremental cost of the subsidized voucher relative to providing public housing. We conclude that offering low-income families housing vouchers and assistance in moving to lowerpoverty neighborhoods has substantial benefits for the families themselves and for taxpayers. It appears important to target such housing vouchers to families with young children – perhaps even at birth – to maximize the benefits. Our results provide less support for policies that seek to improve the economic outcomes of adults through residential relocation. More broadly, our findings suggest that efforts to integrate disadvant... Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/sha256%3Aa12b8c1f14eeabc92c1d91bd0311bc4aa3ddf6d7fb69ca798ca6926e7fa292c7 for complete metadata about this dataset.

A growing body of research suggests that housing eviction is more common than previously recognized and may play an important role in the reproduction of poverty. The proportion of children affected by housing eviction, however, remains largely unknown. We estimate that 1 in 7 children born in large American cities in 1998–2000 experienced at least one eviction for nonpayment of rent or mortgage between birth and age 15. Rates of eviction were substantial across all cities and demographic groups studied, but children from disadvantaged backgrounds were most likely to experience eviction. Among those born into deep poverty, we estimate that about 1 in 4 were evicted by age 15. Given prior evidence that forced moves have negative consequences for children, we conclude that the high prevalence and social stratification of housing eviction are sufficient to play an important role in the reproduction of poverty and warrant greater policy attention.

Abstract

The main objective of the 2019 Chattogram for Low Income Area Gender, Inclusion, and Poverty (CITY) study is to collect primary data from male and female residents in slum and non-slum poor neighborhoods in Chattogram, the second largest city of Bangladesh, and build the evidence base about their constraints to access more and better jobs. The CITY survey was designed to shed light on poverty, economic empowerment, and livelihood in urban areas of Bangladesh as well as to identify key constraints and solutions for low-income women trying to obtain better jobs.

A broad array of information was collected on issues related to women's economic empowerment, ranging from demographic and socioeconomic characteristics to detailed work history, time use, attitudes about work, and perceptions of work. The key feature of this survey is to collect economic data directly from the main household members, generally the main couples, unlike traditional surveys which only interviewed the heads of households (who tend to be men in most cases); thus, failed to gather valuable information from the female population.

Geographic coverage

Poor areas of slum & non-slum areas of Chattogram, the second largest city of Bangladesh.

Analysis unit

Household, individual

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The CITY 2019 survey was designed using a two-stage sampling strategy. The major features include the following steps:

FIRST STAGE: The primary sampling units (PSUs) in the first stage were selected using a probability proportional to size (PPS) methods. Using the 2011 census sampling frame, low-income PSUs were defined as non-slum census enumeration areas (EAs) using the 2011 Bangladesh Poverty Map. Three strata were used for sampling the low-income EAs. These strata were defined based on the poverty head-count ratios. The first stratum encompasses EAs with a poverty headcount ratio less than 10%; the second stratum between 11% and 14%; and the third stratum, those exceeding 15%. Overall, 22 low-income EAs were selected in the Chattogram City Corporation (CC).

Slums were defined as informal settlements that were listed in the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics' slum census from 2013/14. This census was used as sampling frame of the slum areas. Based on the sizes of the slums, three strata were used for sampling purposes. This time the strata were based on the size of the slums. The first stratum comprises slums of 50 to 75 households; the second 76 to 99 households; and the third, more than 100 households. Small slums with fewer than 50 households were not included in the sampling frame. Overall, 18 slums were included as a part of the survey.

SECOND STAGE: The second stage of the selection process in each of the EAs began with a listing exercise. For very large EAs, a smaller section was delineated for the listing. The second level of stratification are defined as follows:

i) Households with both working-age male and female members; ii) Households with only a working-age female; iii) Households with only a working-age male.

Households were randomly selected from each stratum with the predetermined ratio of 16:3:1. Overall, data was collected from 805 households (1289 individuals - 580 in slum and 709 in non-slum areas).

Sampling deviation

For EAs where the ratio was unable to be attained due to absence of households in certain strata, households from the first category to arrive at a final number of 20 per EA.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Response rate

77%