The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program requires that each CDBG funded activity must either principally benefit low- and moderate-income persons, aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or meet a community development need having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community and other financial resources are not available to meet that need. With respect to activities that principally benefit low- and moderate-income persons, at least 51 percent of the activity's beneficiaries must be low and moderate income. For CDBG, a person is considered to be of low income only if he or she is a member of a household whose income would qualify as "very low income" under the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments program. Generally, these Section 8 limits are based on 50% of area median. Similarly, CDBG moderate income relies on Section 8 "lower income" limits, which are generally tied to 80% of area median. These data are from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS). To learn more about the Low to Moderate Income Populations visit: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/acs-low-mod-summary-data/, for questions about the spatial attribution of this dataset, please reach out to us at GISHelpdesk@hud.gov. Data Dictionary: DD_Low to Moderate Income Populations by Block GroupDate of Coverage: ACS 2020-2016

This service identifies U.S. Census Tracts in which 51% or more of the households earn less than 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program requires that each CDBG funded activity must either principally benefit low- and moderate-income persons, aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or meet a community development need having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community and other financial resources are not available to meet that need. With respect to activities that principally benefit low- and moderate-income persons, at least 51 percent of the activity's beneficiaries must be low and moderate income.

FY2024 full and partial census tracts that qualify as Low-Moderate Income Areas (LMA) where 51% or more of the population are considered as having Low-Moderate Income. The low- and moderate-income summary data (LMISD) is based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS). As of August 1, 2024, to qualify any new low- and moderate-income area (LMA) activities, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) grantees should use this map and data.

For more information about LMA/LMI click the following link to open in new browser tab https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/cdbg/cdbg-low-moderate-income-data/

This dataset represents the geospatial extent as polygons and the corresponding attribution for census block groups that meet the definition of low-income communities according to the Virginia 2020 Environmental Justice Act: “Low-income community” definition: “’Low-income community’ means any census block group in which 30 percent or more of the population is composed of people with low income.”

The referenced “low income” definition is also provided below: “Low income” definition: “’Low income’ means having an annual household income equal to or less than the greater of (i) an amount equal to 80 percent of the median income of the area in which the household is located, as reported by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and (ii) 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.”Click Here to view Data Fact Sheet.

Between 2018 and 2022, people in households in the ‘other’, Asian and black ethnic groups were the most likely to be in persistent low income, both before and after housing costs, out of all ethnic groups.

This dataset and map service provides information on the U.S. Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) low to moderate income areas. The term Low to Moderate Income, often referred to as low-mod, has a specific programmatic context within the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Over a 1, 2, or 3-year period, as selected by the grantee, not less than 70 percent of CDBG funds must be used for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. HUD uses special tabulations of Census data to determine areas where at least 51% of households have incomes at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI). This dataset and map service contains the following layer.

These geospatial data resources and the linked mapping tool below reflect currently available data on three categories of potentially qualifying Low-Income communities: Census tracts that meet the CDFI's New Market Tax Credit Program's threshold for Low Income, thereby are able to apply to Category 1. Census tracts that meet the White House's Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool's threshold for disadvantage in the 'Energy' category, thereby are able to apply for Additional Selection Criteria Geography. Counties that meet the USDA's threshold for Persistent Poverty, thereby are able to apply for Additional Selection Criteria Geography. Note that Category 2 - Indian Lands are not shown on this map. Note that Persistent Poverty is not calculated for US Territories. Note that CEJST Energy disadvantage is not calculated for US Territories besides Puerto Rico. The excel tool provides the land area percentage of each 2023 census tract meeting each of the above categories. To examine geographic eligibility for a specific address or latitude and longitude, visit the program's mapping tool. Additional information on this tax credit program can be found on the DOE Landing Page for the 48e program at https://www.energy.gov/diversity/low-income-communities-bonus-credit-program or the IRS Landing Page at https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/low-income-communities-bonus-credit. Maps last updated: September 1st, 2024 Next map update expected: December 7th, 2024 Disclaimer: The spatial data and mapping tool is intended for geolocation purposes. It should not be relied upon by taxpayers to determine eligibility for the Low-Income Communities Bonus Credit Program. Source Acknowledgements: The New Market Tax Credit (NMTC) Tract layer using data from the 2016-2020 ACS is from the CDFI Information Mapping System (CIMS) and is created by the U.S. Department of Treasury Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. To learn more, visit CDFI Information Mapping System (CIMS) | Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (cdfifund.gov). https://www.cdfifund.gov/mapping-system. Tracts are displayed that meet the threshold for the New Market Tax Credit Program. The 'Energy' Category Tract layer from the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) is created by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) within the Executive Office of the President. To learn more, visit https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/en/. Tracts are displayed that meet the threshold for the 'Energy' Category of burden. I.e., census tracts that are at or above the 90th percentile for (energy burden OR PM2.5 in the air) AND are at or above the 65th percentile for low income. The Persistent Poverty County layer is created by joining the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service's Poverty Area Official Measures dataset, with relevant county TIGER/Line Shapefiles from the US Census Bureau. To learn more, visit https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/poverty-area-measures/. Counties are displayed that meet the thresholds for Persistent Poverty according to 'Official' USDA updates. i.e. areas with a poverty rate of 20.0 percent or more for 4 consecutive time periods, about 10 years apart, spanning approximately 30 years (baseline time period plus 3 evaluation time periods). Until Dec 7th, 2024 both the USDA estimates using 2007-2011 and 2017-2021 ACS 5-year data. On Dec 8th, 2024, only the USDA estimates using 2017-2021 data will be accepted for program eligibility.

Between April 2008 and March 2024, households from the Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups were the most likely to live in low income out of all ethnic groups, before and after housing costs.

This is the proportion of children aged under 16 (0-15) living in families in absolute low income during the year. The figures are based on the count of children aged under 16 (0-15) living in the area derived from ONS mid-year population estimates. The count of children refers to the age of the child at 30 June of each year.

Low income is a family whose equivalised income is below 60 per cent of median household incomes. Gross income measure is Before Housing Costs (BHC) and includes contributions from earnings, state support, and pensions. Equivalisation adjusts incomes for household size and composition, taking an adult couple with no children as the reference point. For example, the process of equivalisation would adjust the income of a single person upwards, so their income can be compared directly to the standard of living for a couple.

Absolute low income is income Before Housing Costs (BHC) in the reference year in comparison with incomes in 2010/11 adjusted for inflation. A family must have claimed one or more of Universal Credit, Tax Credits, or Housing Benefit at any point in the year to be classed as low income in these statistics. Children are dependent individuals aged under 16; or aged 16 to 19 in full-time non-advanced education. The count of children refers to the age of the child at 31 March of each year.

Data are calibrated to the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) survey regional estimates of children in low income but provide more granular local area information not available from the HBAI. For further information and methodology on the construction of these statistics, visit this link. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Data is Powered by LG Inform Plus and automatically checked for new data on the 3rd of each month.

Households Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income: CF: Orel Region data was reported at 14.400 NA in 2023. This records an increase from the previous number of 10.500 NA for 2022. Households Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income: CF: Orel Region data is updated yearly, averaging 11.200 NA from Dec 1995 (Median) to 2023, with 29 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 14.800 NA in 2008 and a record low of 8.000 NA in 1999. Households Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income: CF: Orel Region data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Federal State Statistics Service. The data is categorized under Russia Premium Database’s Household Survey – Table RU.HA016: Household Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income.

Housing-Burdened Low-Income Households. Percent of households in a census tract that are both low income (making less than 80% of the HUD Area Median Family Income) and severely burdened by housing costs (paying greater than 50% of their income to housing costs). (5-year estimates, 2013-2017).

The cost and availability of housing is an important determinant of well- being. Households with lower incomes may spend a larger proportion of their income on housing. The inability of households to afford necessary non-housing goods after paying for shelter is known as housing-induced poverty. California has very high housing costs relative to much of the country, making it difficult for many to afford adequate housing. Within California, the cost of living varies significantly and is largely dependent on housing cost, availability, and demand.

Areas where low-income households may be stressed by high housing costs can be identified through the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data. We measure households earning less than 80% of HUD Area Median Family Income by county and paying greater than 50% of their income to housing costs. The indicator takes into account the regional cost of living for both homeowners and renters, and factors in the cost of utilities. CHAS data are calculated from US Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS).

Households Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income: UF: Tumen Region: Yamalo Nenetsky Area data was reported at 22.800 NA in 2023. This records an increase from the previous number of 19.100 NA for 2022. Households Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income: UF: Tumen Region: Yamalo Nenetsky Area data is updated yearly, averaging 18.550 NA from Dec 2000 (Median) to 2023, with 24 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 22.800 NA in 2023 and a record low of 17.100 NA in 2015. Households Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income: UF: Tumen Region: Yamalo Nenetsky Area data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Federal State Statistics Service. The data is categorized under Russia Premium Database’s Household Survey – Table RU.HA016: Household Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income.

This dataset provides access to Qualified Census Tracts (QCTs) in Connecticut to assist in administration of American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds. The Secretary of HUD must designate QCTs, which are areas where either 50 percent or more of the households have an income less than 60 percent of the AMGI for such year or have a poverty rate of at least 25 percent. HUD designates QCTs based on new income and poverty data released in the American Community Survey (ACS). Specifically, HUD relies on the most recent three sets of ACS data to ensure that anomalous estimates, due to sampling, do not affect the QCT status of tracts. QCTs are identified for the purpose of Low-Income Housing Credits under IRC Section 42, with the purpose of increasing the availability of low-income rental housing by providing an income tax credit to certain owners of newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated low-income rental housing projects. Also included are the number of households from the 2010 census (the “p0150001” variable), the average poverty rate using the 2014-2018 ACS data (the “pov_rate_18” variable), and the ratio of Tract Average Household Size Adjusted Income Limit to Tract Median Household Income using the 2014-2018 ACS data (the “inc_factor_18” variable). For the last variable mentioned in the previous paragraph, the income limit is the limit for being considered a very low income household (size-adjusted and based on Area Mean Gross Income). This value is divided by the median household income for the given tract, to get a sense of how the limit and median incomes compare. For example, if ratio>1, it implies that the tract is very low income because the limit income is greater than the median income. This ratio is a compact way to include the separate variables for the household income limit and median household income for each tract.

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is the most important resource for creating affordable housing in the United States today. The LIHTC database, created by HUD and available to the public since 1997, contains information on 48,672 projects and 3.23 million housing units placed in service since 1987. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Qualified Census Tracts must have 50 percent of households with incomes below 60 percent of the Area Median Gross Income (AMGI) or have a poverty rate of 25 percent or more. Difficult Development Areas (DDA) are areas with high land, construction and utility costs relative to the area median income and are based on Fair Market Rents, income limits, the 2010 census counts, and 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) data.

Abstract

The 2018 Dhaka Low Income Area Gender, Inclusion, and Poverty (DIGNITY) survey attempts to fill in the data and knowledge gaps on women's economic empowerment in urban areas, specifically the factors that constrain women in slums and low-income neighborhoods from engaging in the labor market and supplying their labor to wage earning or self-employment. While an array of national-level datasets has collected a wide spectrum of information, they rarely comprise all of the information needed to study the drivers of Female Labor Force Participation (FLFP). This data gap is being filled by the primary data collection of the specialized DIGNITY survey; it is representative of poor urban areas and is specifically designed to address these limitations. The DIGNITY survey collected information from 1,300 urban households living in poor areas of Dhaka in 2018 on a range of issues that affect FLFP as identified through the literature. These range from household composition and demographic characteristics to socioeconomic characteristics such as detailed employment history and income (including locational data and travel details); and from technical and educational attributes to issues of time use, migration history, and attitudes and perceptions.

The DIGNITY survey was designed to shed light on poverty, economic empowerment, and livelihood in urban areas of Bangladesh. It has two main modules: the traditional household module (in which the head of household is interviewed on basic information about the household); and the individual module, in which two respondents from each household are interviewed individually. In the second module, two persons - one male and one female from each household, usually the main couple, are selected for the interview. The survey team deployed one male and one female interviewer for each household, so that the gender of the interviewers matched that of the respondents. Collecting economic data directly from a female and male household member, rather than just the head of the household (who tend to be men in most cases), was a key feature of the DIGNITY survey.

Geographic coverage

The DIGNITY survey is representative of low-income areas and slums of the Dhaka City Corporations (North and South, from here on referred to as Dhaka CCs), and an additional low-income site from the Greater Dhaka Statistical Metropolitan Area (SMA).

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sampling procedure followed a two-stage stratification design. The major features include the following steps (they are discussed in more detail in a copy of the study's report and the sampling document located in "External Resources"):

FIRST STAGE: Selection of the PSUs

Low-income primary sampling units (PSUs) were defined as nonslum census enumeration areas (EAs), in which the small-sample area estimate of the poverty rate is higher than 8 percent (using the 2011 Bangladesh Poverty Map). The sampling frame for these low-income areas in the Dhaka City Corporations (CCs) and Greater Dhaka is based on the population census of 2011. For the Dhaka CCs, all low-income census EAs formed the sampling frame. In the Greater Dhaka area, the frame was formed by all low-income census EAs in specific thanas (i.e. administrative unit in Bangladesh) where World Bank project were located.

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 between 8 and 10 percent; the second stratum between 11 and 14 percent; and the third stratum, those exceeding 15 percent.

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. Only slums in the Dhaka City Corporations are included. Again, three strata were used to sample the slums. 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, 100 or more households. Small slums with fewer than 50 households were not included in the sampling frame. Very small slums were included in the low-income neighborhood selection if they are in a low-income area.

Altogether, the DIGNITY survey collected data from 67 PSUs.

SECOND STAGE: Selection of the Households

In each sampled PSU a complete listing of households was done to form the frame for the second stage of sampling: the selection of households. When the number of households in a PSU was very large, smaller sections of the neighborhood were identified, and one section was randomly selected to be listed. The listing data collected information on the demographics of the household to determine whether a household fell into one of the three categories that were used to stratify the household sample:

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 selected from each stratum with the predetermined ratio of 16:3:1. In some cases there were not enough households in categories (ii) and (iii) to stick to this ratio; in this case all of the households in the category were sampled, and additional households were selected from the first category to bring the total number of households sampled in each PSU to 20.

The total sample consisted of 1,300 households (2,378 individuals).

Sampling deviation

The sampling for 1300 households was planned after the listing exercise. During the field work, about 115 households (8.8 percent) could not be interviewed due to household refusal or absence. These households were replaced with reserved households in the sample.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The questionnaires for the survey were developed by the World Bank, with assistance from the survey firm, DATA. Comments were incorporated following the pilot tests and practice session/pretest.

Cleaning operations

Collected data was entered into a computer by using the customized MS Access data input software developed by Data Analysis and Technical Assistance (DATA). Once data entry was completed, two different techniques were employed to check consistency and validity of data as follows:

1. Five (5%) percent of the filled-in questionnaire was checked against entered data to measure the transmission error or typos, and;
2. A logical consistency checking technique was employed to identify inconsistencies using SPSS and or STATA software.

Nearly 9 million Americans live in extreme-poverty neighborhoods, places that also tend to be racially segregated and dangerous. Yet, the effects on the well-being of residents of moving out of such communities into less distressed areas remain uncertain. Moving to Opportunity (MTO) is a randomized housing experiment administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development that gave low-income families living in high-poverty areas in five cities the chance to move to lower-poverty areas. Families were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) The experimental group (also called the low-poverty voucher (LPV) group) received Section 8 rental assistance certificates or vouchers that they could use only in census tracts with 1990 poverty rates below 10 percent. The families received mobility counseling and help in leasing a new unit. One year after relocating, families could use their voucher to move again if they wished, without any special constraints on location. (2) The Section 8 group (also called the traditional voucher (TRV) group) received regular Section 8 certificates or vouchers that they could use anywhere; these families received no special mobility counseling. (3) The control group received no certificates or vouchers through MTO, but continued to be eligible for project-based housing assistance and whatever other social programs and services to which they would otherwise be entitled. Families were tracked from baseline (1994-98) through the long-term evaluation survey fielding period (2008-10) with the purpose of determining the effects of "neighborhood" on participating families. This data collection contains data from the 3,273 adult interviews completed as part of the MTO long-term evaluation and are comprised of adult variables that have been analyzed. Using data from the long-term evaluation, the associated article reports that moving from a high-poverty to lower-poverty neighborhood leads to long-term (10- to 15-year) improvements in adult physical and mental health and subjective well-being, despite not affecting economic self-sufficiency. The data contain all adult outcomes and mediators analyzed for the associated article as well as a variety of demographic and other baseline measures that were controlled for in the analysis.

Households Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income: VR: Penza Region data was reported at 10.900 NA in 2023. This records an increase from the previous number of 9.500 NA for 2022. Households Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income: VR: Penza Region data is updated yearly, averaging 9.900 NA from Dec 1995 (Median) to 2023, with 29 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 13.200 NA in 2012 and a record low of 6.600 NA in 1995. Households Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income: VR: Penza Region data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Federal State Statistics Service. The data is categorized under Russia Premium Database’s Household Survey – Table RU.HA016: Household Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income.

This service provides spatial data and information on Difficult Development Areas (DDAs) used for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program. DDAs are designated by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and defined in statute as areas with high construction, land, and utility costs relative to its Area Median Gross Income (AMGI). DDAs in metropolitan areas are designated along Census ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) boundaries. DDAs in non-metropolitan areas are designated along county boundaries. DDAs may not contain more than 20% of the aggregate population of metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, which are designated separately.

Data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research (HUD PD&R) and American Community Survey provided by the Urban Institute. This metric reports the share of low-income households at three income levels, low-income (below 80 percent of area median income, or AMI), very low-income (below 50 percent of AMI), and extremely low-income (below 30 percent of AMI), that spend more than half (>50%) of their household income on rent.