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.

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.

Inflation rates for the lowest income households were almost always higher than for the highest income households between 2005 and 2021. The biggest difference was seen in December 2008, when the lowest income households experienced inflation rates 0.8 percent greater than the highest income households. In 2021, the difference in the inflation rate experienced by the lowest income households and the highest income households fell considerably, reaching -0.52 percent in July 2021, meaning that inflation was 0.52 percent higher for the highest earners versus the lowest earners.

The Consumer Price Index The consumer price index (CPI) measures the rate of inflation on a basket of goods as a way to document the general inflationary experience of all urban consumers. While this measure of inflation can give us insights into the general price increases of consumer goods, it may not reflect the actual inflation experienced by any given household. Consumers from different income brackets actually behave quite differently when it comes to consumption preferences and their willingness to pay.

Inflation in 2022 2022 was an exceptional year for inflation worldwide due to a multitude of factors relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The inflation rate in the United States reached a high of 9.1 percent during the summer, with consumers experiencing record fuel prices, and increased concerns over the state of the economy. Despite the 2021 figures indicating that inflation has been higher for the highest earners, the pandemic saw U.S. billionaires increase their wealth by 57 percent between March 2020 and March 2022.

The StatXplore Children in low-income families' local area statistics (CiLIF) provides information on the number of children living in Relative low income by local area across the United Kingdom.The summary Statistical Release and tables which also show the proportions of children living in low income families are available here: Children in low income families: local area statistics - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)Statistics on the number of children (by age) in low income families by financial year are published on Stat-Xplore. Figures 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 example by Local Authority, Westminster Parliamentary Constituency and Ward.

Relative low-income is defined as a family in low income Before Housing Costs (BHC) in the reference year. A family must have claimed Child Benefit and at least one other household benefit (Universal Credit, tax credits, or Housing Benefit) at any point in the year to be classed as low income in these statistics. Gross income measure is Before Housing Costs (BHC) and includes contributions from earnings, state support and pensions.

In 2022, nearly two in five of the Generation Alpha were living in low-income households in the United States, with 38 percent of Gen Alpha living in families who earn less annually than twice the value of the federal poverty level. In comparison, only 25 percent of Baby Boomers and 21 percent of Generation X were living in low-income households in that year.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents median household incomes for various household sizes in Lower Frederick Township, Pennsylvania, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in median household income with the size of the family unit, offering valuable insights into economic trends and disparities within different household sizes, aiding in data analysis and decision-making.

Key observations

• Of the 7 household sizes (1 person to 7-or-more person households) reported by the census bureau, Lower Frederick township did not include 6, or 7-person households. Across the different household sizes in Lower Frederick township the mean income is $114,174, and the standard deviation is $36,893. The coefficient of variation (CV) is 32.31%. This high CV indicates high relative variability, suggesting that the incomes vary significantly across different sizes of households.
• In the most recent year, 2021, The smallest household size for which the bureau reported a median household income was 1-person households, with an income of $58,807. It then further increased to $135,893 for 5-person households, the largest household size for which the bureau reported a median household income.

https://i.neilsberg.com/ch/lower-frederick-township-pa-median-household-income-by-household-size.jpeg" alt="Lower Frederick Township, Pennsylvania median household income, by household size (in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars)">

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Household Sizes:

• 1-person households
• 2-person households
• 3-person households
• 4-person households
• 5-person households
• 6-person households
• 7-or-more-person households

Variables / Data Columns

• Household Size: This column showcases 7 household sizes ranging from 1-person households to 7-or-more-person households (As mentioned above).
• Median Household Income: Median household income, in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific household size.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Lower Frederick township median household income. You can refer the same here

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.

This dataset is a county level summary of housing problems of low income households. Low income households (

The number and population of low-income households in Taichung City are categorized by household and age group.

Urban Displacement Project’s (UDP) Estimated Displacement Risk (EDR) model for California identifies varying levels of displacement risk for low-income renter households in all census tracts in the state from 2015 to 2019(1). The model uses machine learning to determine which variables are most strongly related to displacement at the household level and to predict tract-level displacement risk statewide while controlling for region. UDP defines displacement risk as a census tract with characteristics which, according to the model, are strongly correlated with more low-income population loss than gain. In other words, the model estimates that more low-income households are leaving these neighborhoods than moving in.This map is a conservative estimate of low-income loss and should be considered a tool to help identify housing vulnerability. Displacement may occur because of either investment, disinvestment, or disaster-driven forces. Because this risk assessment does not identify the causes of displacement, UDP does not recommend that the tool be used to assess vulnerability to investment such as new housing construction or infrastructure improvements. HCD recommends combining this map with on-the-ground accounts of displacement, as well as other related data such as overcrowding, cost burden, and income diversity to achieve a full understanding of displacement risk.If you see a tract or area that does not seem right, please fill out this form to help UDP ground-truth the method and improve their model.How should I read the displacement map layers?The AFFH Data Viewer includes three separate displacement layers that were generated by the EDR model. The “50-80% AMI” layer shows the level of displacement risk for low-income (LI) households specifically. Since UDP has reason to believe that the data may not accurately capture extremely low-income (ELI) households due to the difficulty in counting this population, UDP combined ELI and very low-income (VLI) household predictions into one group—the “0-50% AMI” layer—by opting for the more “extreme” displacement scenario (e.g., if a tract was categorized as “Elevated” for VLI households but “Extreme” for ELI households, UDP assigned the tract to the “Extreme” category for the 0-50% layer). For these two layers, tracts are assigned to one of the following categories, with darker red colors representing higher displacement risk and lighter orange colors representing less risk:• Low Data Quality: the tract has less than 500 total households and/or the census margins of error were greater than 15% of the estimate (shaded gray).• Lower Displacement Risk: the model estimates that the loss of low-income households is less than the gain in low-income households. However, some of these areas may have small pockets of displacement within their boundaries. • At Risk of Displacement: the model estimates there is potential displacement or risk of displacement of the given population in these tracts.• Elevated Displacement: the model estimates there is a small amount of displacement (e.g., 10%) of the given population.• High Displacement: the model estimates there is a relatively high amount of displacement (e.g., 20%) of the given population.• Extreme Displacement: the model estimates there is an extreme level of displacement (e.g., greater than 20%) of the given population. The “Overall Displacement” layer shows the number of income groups experiencing any displacement risk. For example, in the dark red tracts (“2 income groups”), the model estimates displacement (Elevated, High, or Extreme) for both of the two income groups. In the light orange tracts categorized as “At Risk of Displacement”, one or all three income groups had to have been categorized as “At Risk of Displacement”. Light yellow tracts in the “Overall Displacement” layer are not experiencing UDP’s definition of displacement according to the model. Some of these yellow tracts may be majority low-income experiencing small to significant growth in this population while in other cases they may be high-income and exclusive (and therefore have few low-income residents to begin with). One major limitation to the model is that the migration data UDP uses likely does not capture some vulnerable populations, such as undocumented households. This means that some yellow tracts may be experiencing high rates of displacement among these types of households. MethodologyThe EDR is a first-of-its-kind model that uses machine learning and household level data to predict displacement. To create the EDR, UDP first joined household-level data from Data Axle (formerly Infogroup) with tract-level data from the 2014 and 2019 5-year American Community Survey; Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) data from various sources compiled by California Housing and Community Development; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data; and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Smart Location Database.UDP then used a machine learning model to determine which variables are most strongly related to displacement at the household level and to predict tract-level displacement risk statewide while controlling for region. UDP modeled displacement risk as the net migration rate of three separate renter households income categories: extremely low-income (ELI), very low-income (VLI), and low-income (LI). These households have incomes between 0-30% of the Area Median Income (AMI), 30-50% AMI, and 50-80% AMI, respectively. Tracts that have a predicted net loss within these groups are considered to experience displacement in three degrees: elevated, high, and extreme. UDP also includes a “At Risk of Displacement” category in tracts that might be experiencing displacement.What are the main limitations of this map?1. Because the map uses 2019 data, it does not reflect more recent trends. The pandemic, which started in 2020, has exacerbated income inequality and increased housing costs, meaning that UDP’s map likely underestimates current displacement risk throughout the state.2. The model examines displacement risk for renters only, and does not account for the fact that many homeowners are also facing housing and gentrification pressures. As a result, the map generally only highlights areas with relatively high renter populations, and neighborhoods with higher homeownership rates that are known to be experiencing gentrification and displacement are not as prominent as one might expect.3. The model does not incorporate data on new housing construction or infrastructure projects. The map therefore does not capture the potential impacts of these developments on displacement risk; it only accounts for other characteristics such as demographics and some features of the built environment. Two of UDP’s other studies—on new housing construction and green infrastructure—explore the relationships between these factors and displacement.Variable ImportanceFigures 1, 2, and 3 show the most important variables for each of the three models—ELI, VLI, and LI. The horizontal bars show the importance of each variable in predicting displacement for the respective group. All three models share a similar order of variable importance with median rent, percent non-white, rent gap (i.e., rental market pressure calculated using the difference between nearby and local rents), percent renters, percent high-income households, and percent of low-income households driving much of the displacement estimation. Other important variables include building types as well as economic and socio-demographic characteristics. For a full list of the variables included in the final models, ranked by descending order of importance, and their definitions see all three tabs of this spreadsheet. “Importance” is defined in two ways: 1. % Inclusion: The average proportion of times this variable was included in the model’s decision tree as the most important or driving factor.2. MeanRank: The average rank of importance for each variable across the numerous model runs where higher numbers mean higher ranking. Figures 1 through 3 below show each of the model variable rankings ordered by importance. The red lines represent Jenks Breaks, which are designed to sort values into their most “natural” clusters. Variable importance for each model shows a substantial drop-off after about 10 variables, meaning a relatively small number of variables account for a large amount of the predictive power in UDP’s displacement model.Figure 1. Variable Importance for Low Income HouseholdsFor a description of each variable and its source, see this spreadsheet.Figure 2. Variable Importance for Very Low Income HouseholdsFor a description of each variable and its source, see this spreadsheet. Figure 3. Variable Importance for Extremely Low Income HouseholdsFor a description of each variable and its source, see this spreadsheet.Source: Chapple, K., & Thomas, T., and Zuk, M. (2022). Urban Displacement Project website. Berkeley, CA: Urban Displacement Project.(1) UDP used this time-frame because (a) the 2020 census had a large non-response rate and it implemented a new statistical modification that obscures and misrepresents racial and economic characteristics at the census tract level and (b) pandemic mobility trends are still in flux and UDP believes 2019 is more representative of “normal” or non-pandemic displacement trends.

Register in the Eastern District of Chiayi City in 2017, and calculate the average distribution of total income among families in each neighborhood; the monthly income of each individual does not exceed the standard minimum living expenses for the year, meeting the criteria of low-income households, those in the lower tier of low-income households, and individuals over 65 living alone.

Households Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income: North Western Federal District (NW): Republic of Karelia data was reported at 11.000 NA in 2023. This records an increase from the previous number of 8.400 NA for 2022. Households Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income: North Western Federal District (NW): Republic of Karelia data is updated yearly, averaging 9.500 NA from Dec 1995 (Median) to 2023, with 29 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 11.600 NA in 2012 and a record low of 6.400 NA in 1995. Households Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income: North Western Federal District (NW): Republic of Karelia 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.

Households Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income: CF: Kursk Region data was reported at 11.200 NA in 2023. This records an increase from the previous number of 10.400 NA for 2022. Households Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income: CF: Kursk 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 13.700 NA in 2012 and a record low of 5.700 NA in 1995. Households Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income: CF: Kursk 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.

The summary Statistical Release and tables which also show the proportions of children living in low income families are available here: Children in low income families: local area statistics - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)Statistics on the number of children (by age) in low income families by financial year are published on Stat-Xplore. Figures 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 example by Local Authority, Westminster Parliamentary Constituency and Ward. Relative low-income is defined as a family in low income Before Housing Costs (BHC) in the reference year. A family must have claimed Child Benefit and at least one other household benefit (Universal Credit, tax credits, or Housing Benefit) at any point in the year to be classed as low income in these statistics. Gross income measure is Before Housing Costs (BHC) and includes contributions from earnings, state support and pensions.

After applying, the competent authority in the household registration location will review and determine if it meets the low-income household criteria.

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.

Households Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income: SB: Republic of Tyva data was reported at 13.000 NA in 2023. This records an increase from the previous number of 11.000 NA for 2022. Households Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income: SB: Republic of Tyva data is updated yearly, averaging 11.100 NA from Dec 1995 (Median) to 2023, with 29 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 30.700 NA in 1995 and a record low of 8.600 NA in 1998. Households Income Ratio: 10% with High Income to 10% with Low Income: SB: Republic of Tyva 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.

The data is the results of the network based ABM model of the financial system of low income families. The complex financial system of low-income families manage the gaps between the families expenditure and incomes, financial liquidity shocks and permanent financial crises. The code for the multi-agent model and simulation is available on CoMSES Network-Computational Model Library as: Credit and debt market of low-income families (version 1.0.0),”https://www.comses.net/codebase-release/74832082-f455-4d58-88f3-\ \7efeb29b1966” The economic actions of the actors within the system are embedded in a dynamic network of formal and informal credit institutions and connections. The total number of households in the database is 159, that is the village’s entire population. The monthly income of each household is calculated using evidence-based data and the possible connections of different credit institutions or interpersonal credit connections are also based on measured network data. The entire measured credit network of the households in a year it includes. The households appear as decision-making agents in the model, while the seven formal ind informal credit institutions appear as quasi-agents. The model assumes that the agents maintain credit partners in the market to balance the differences between their incomes and expenditures. If the budget of the household becomes negative, they can apply for loans or credits provided by their network connections. The agents may have several credits simultaneously from different institutions to remedy their liquidity shocks but can have only one pending credit relation from one particular credit source. Further, they are free to exit their credit connections to some extent, but the existence of a network connection is defined by an agent’s previous transactions. An interval indicates one day in the dataset. The total run of the model was 365 days, starting from the hypothetical Spring month. Each day, our model calculates the local socioeconomic strata and many other model indicators. The local socioeconomic strata are calculated based on a complex set of variables that take into account the incomes, consumption structure, size of the family and the basis of the available liquid capital. The model classifies the households into three local social segments: Poor households (PoorHH or l_ ) that are below the poverty line, middle households characterised by medium incomes at the local level (MiddleHH or m_ ) and finally high-income households (HighHH or h_ ). A thousand simulations were made on each parameterised model, thus, the analysis is based on a total of 54.000 simulated models, including 40.000 models used for validation and 14.000 for analysis.

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program gives State and local agencies the equivalent of nearly $8 billion in annual budget authority to issue tax credits for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing targeted to lower-income households. The LIHTC database, created by HUD and available to the public since 1997, contains information on over 47,000 projects and 3 million housing units placed in service between 1987 and 2017. It is the only complete national source of information on the size, unit mix, and location of individual projects. These data have also been geocoded, enabling researchers to look at the geographical distribution and neighborhood characteristics of tax credit projects. It may also help show how incentives to locate projects in low-income areas and other underserved markets are working. The database includes project address, number of units and low-income units, number of bedrooms, year the credit was allocated, year the project was placed in service, whether the project was new construction or rehab, type of credit provided, and other sources of project financing. For more information, see HUD.gov