Between 2018 and 2022, Americans who identified as Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Hispanic or Latino were most likely to be living in low-income households across all generations in the United States. Within the provided time period, ** percent of Generation Alpha who were Black lived in families with incomes below the federal poverty line in the United States, followed by ** percent who were American Indian or Alaska Native, and ** percent who were Hispanic or Latino.

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.

We examine long-term neighborhood effects on low-income families using data from the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) randomized housing-mobility experiment. This experiment offered to some public-housing families but not to others the chance to move to less-disadvantaged neighborhoods. We show that ten to 15 years after baseline, MTO: (i) improves adult physical and mental health; (ii) has no detectable effect on economic outcomes or youth schooling or physical health; and (iii) has mixed results by gender on other youth outcomes, with girls doing better on some measures and boys doing worse. Despite the somewhat mixed pattern of impacts on traditional behavioral outcomes, MTO moves substantially improve adult subjective well-being.

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 low-poverty voucher (LPV) group (also called the experimental 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 traditional voucher (TRV) group (also called the Section 8 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 (1994-1998) through the long-term evaluation survey fielding period (2008-2010) with the purpose of determining the effects of "neighborhood" on participating families. This data collection includes data from the 3,273 adult interviews completed as part of the MTO long-term evaluation. Using data from the long-term evaluation, the associated article reports that moving from a high-poverty to lower-poverty neighborhood was associated in the long-term (10 to 15 years) with modest, but potentially important, reductions in the prevalence of extreme obesity and diabetes. The data contain all outcomes and mediators analyzed for the associated article (with the exception of a few mediator variables from the interim MTO evaluation) as well as a variety of demographic and other baseline measures that were controlled for in the analysis.

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.

This statistic shows the main obstacles to improving housing access for low-income families according to mayor in the United States in 2017. In that survey, 50 percent of respondents said that the lack of state or federal funds was the biggest obstacle to improving housing access for low-income families.

The Rooftop Energy Potential of Low Income Communities in America REPLICA data set provides estimates of residential rooftop solar technical potential at the tract-level with emphasis on estimates for Low and Moderate Income LMI populations. In addition to technical potential REPLICA is comprised of 10 additional datasets at the tract-level to provide socio-demographic and market context. The model year vintage of REPLICA is 2015. The LMI solar potential estimates are made at the tract level grouped by Area Median Income AMI income tenure and building type. These estimates are based off of LiDAR data of 128 metropolitan areas statistical modeling and ACS 2011-2015 demographic data. The remaining datasets are supplemental datasets that can be used in conjunction with the technical potential data for general LMI solar analysis planning and policy making. The core dataset is a wide-format CSV file seeds_ii_replica.csv that can be tagged to a tract geometry using the GEOID or GISJOIN fields. In addition users can download geographic shapefiles for the main or supplemental datasets. This dataset was generated as part of the larger NREL-led SEEDSII Solar Energy Evolution and Diffusion Studies project and specifically for the NREL technical report titled Rooftop Solar Technical Potential for Low-to-Moderate Income Households in the United States by Sigrin and Mooney 2018. This dataset is intended to give researchers planners advocates and policy-makers access to credible data to analyze low-income solar issues and potentially perform cost-benefit analysis for program design. To explore the data in an interactive web mapping environment use the NREL SolarForAll app.

I present evidence on the relationship between broadband pricing and labor market outcomes for low-income individuals. Specifically, I estimate the effects of a Comcast service providing discounted broadband to qualifying low-income families. I use a triple differences strategy exploiting geographic variation in Comcast coverage, individual variation in eligibility, and temporal variation pre- and post-launch. Local program availability increased employment rates and earnings of eligible individuals, driven by greater labor force participation and decreased probability of unemployment. Internet use increased substantially where the program was available.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This dataset shows official annual experimental statistics for numbers and percentages of Children age under 16 living in Relative and Absolute low income families, by Local Authority District and Ward. More detailed data breakdowns (such as Age of Child, Family Type and Work Status, plus data for other small area geographies and trend data), are available at the Source link. Percentages are calculated by dividing the number of children age 0-15 living in low income families by resident children age 0-15 from mid-year population estimates. The latest data is marked P for Provisional and is subject to future revision. Data source: Department for Work and Pensions and HM Revenue and Customs. Updates are according to government statistics releases. For more information about this data and its methodology, please see the Source link.

The survey on children's standard of living in low-income families is commissioned by NOVA - Norwegian Social Research. It is part of a research collaboration about children and young people's level of living and welfare that was initiated in 2000 by NOVA and the Norwegian Women's Public Health Association (NKS). The objective of the survey is to gather information about the relationship between parent's economy and children's level of living, in their spare-time, at school and at home. It focuses on children's experiences of growing up in low-income families. The survey is planned to be conducted in three rounds - 2003, 2006 and 2009. The panel consists of the respondents from 2003 that were not deceased and had not moved out of the country. In 2003, the age group of 6-9 years were interviewed indirectly through their parents. In 2006, all children (9-15) and their parents were interviewed directly. Data was collected through a combination of personal interviews and self-completion forms. As far as it was possible, the interviews were conducted with both parents and children present at the same time. While one was interviewed, the other did the self-completion form. Children in the age group of 10-12 years were posed different questions than the age group og 13-15 years. These groups were also given different versions of the self-completion form. The fact that parents, children and youth were asked slightly differe nt questions in the survey, is naturally taken into consideration in constructing the variable groups. Each group of variables corresponds to a certain group or several groups of respondents, as indicated in the titles of the variable groups. For access to the dataset, use the NSD application form: http://www.nsd.uib.no/nsd/english/orderform.html

Characteristics of persons in low income families by low income lines.

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

This table contains 166 series, with data for years 1996 - 1996 (not all combinations necessarily have data for all years), and is no longer being released.

2020 data excluded because the U.S. Census Bureau did not release 2020 ACS 1-year estimates due to COVID-19. Some racial and ethnic categories are suppressed to avoid misleading estimates when the relative standard error exceeds 30%.

Data Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates

Why This Matters

Poverty threatens the overall well-being of individuals and families, limiting access to stable housing, healthy foods, health care, and educational and employment opportunities, among other basic needs.Poverty is associated with a higher risk of adverse health outcomes, including chronic physical and mental illness, lower life expectancy, developmental delays, and others.

Racist policies and practices have contributed to racial economic inequities. Nationally, Black, Indigenous, and people of color experience poverty at higher rates than white Americans, on average.

The District's Response

Boosting assistance programs that provide temporary cash and health benefits to help low-income residents meet their basic needs, including Medicaid, TANF For District Families, SNAP, etc.

Housing assistance and employment and career training programs to support resident’s housing and employment security. These include the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, Permanent Supportive Housing vouchers, Career MAP, the DC Infrastructure Academy, among other programs and services.

Creation of the DC Commission on Poverty to study poverty issues, evaluate poverty reduction initiatives, and make recommendations to the Mayor and the Council.

HMRC statistics used in Households Below Average Income statistics and gives local (LA) results.