The 2020-2021 School Neighborhood Poverty Estimates are based on school locations from the 2020-2021 Common Core of Data (CCD) school file and income data from families with children ages 5 to 17 in the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2017-2021 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year collection. The ACS is a continuous household survey that collects social, demographic, economic, and housing information from the population in the United States each month. The Census Bureau calculates the income-to-poverty ratio (IPR) based on money income reported for families relative to the poverty thresholds, which are determined based on the family size and structure. Noncash benefits (such as food stamps and housing subsidies) are excluded, as are capital gains and losses. The IPR is the percentage of family income that is above or below the federal poverty level. The IPR indicator ranges from 0 to a top-coded value of 999. A family with income at the poverty threshold has an IPR value of 100. The estimates in this file reflect the IPR for the neighborhoods around schools which may be different from the neighborhood conditions of students enrolled in schools.All information contained in this file is in the public _domain. Data users are advised to review NCES program documentation and feature class metadata to understand the limitations and appropriate use of these data.

The EDGE School Neighborhood Poverty Estimates rely on household economic data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) and public school point locations developed by NCES to estimate the income-to-poverty ratio for neighborhoods around school buildings. Unlike neighborhood poverty estimates created from survey responses collected for predefined geographic areas like census tracts, Spatially Interpolated Demographic Estimates (SIDE) predict conditions at specific point locations based on the survey responses nearest to those locations. This approach allows SIDE estimates to extract new value from existing data sources to provide indicators of neighborhood conditions. The economic conditions of school neighborhoods may be different from the economic conditions in neighborhoods where students live. However, the economic condition of the neighborhood around a school may impact schools, just as the condition of neighborhood schools may impact local neighborhoods. The school neighborhood poverty estimates provide an additional indicator to help identify these local conditions.

The 2017-2018 School Neighborhood Poverty Estimates are based on school locations from the 2017-2018 Common Core of Data (CCD) school file and income data from families with children ages 5 to 17 in the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2014-2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year collection. The ACS is a continuous household survey that collects social, demographic, economic, and housing information from the population in the United States each month. The Census Bureau calculates the income-to-poverty ratio (IPR) based on money income reported for families relative to the poverty thresholds, which are determined based on the family size and structure. Noncash benefits (such as food stamps and housing subsidies) are excluded, as are capital gains and losses. The IPR is the percentage of family income that is above or below the federal poverty level. The IPR indicator ranges from 0 to a top-coded value of 999. A family with income at the poverty threshold has an IPR value of 100. The estimates in this file reflect the IPR for the neighborhoods around schools which may be different from the neighborhood conditions of students enrolled in schools.All information contained in this file is in the public domain. Data users are advised to review NCES program documentation and feature class metadata to understand the limitations and appropriate use of these data.

The 2016-2017 School Neighborhood Poverty Estimates are based on school locations from the 2016-2017 Common Core of Data (CCD) school file and income data from families with children ages 5 to 17 in the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year collection. The ACS is a continuous household survey that collects social, demographic, economic, and housing information from the population in the United States each month. The Census Bureau calculates the income-to-poverty ratio (IPR) based on money income reported for families relative to the poverty thresholds, which are determined based on the family size and structure. Noncash benefits (such as food stamps and housing subsidies) are excluded, as are capital gains and losses. The IPR is the percentage of family income that is above or below the federal poverty level. The IPR indicator ranges from 0 to a top-coded value of 999. A family with income at the poverty threshold has an IPR value of 100. The estimates in this file reflect the IPR for the neighborhoods around schools which may be different from the neighborhood conditions of students enrolled in schools.All information contained in this file is in the public _domain. Data users are advised to review NCES program documentation and feature class metadata to understand the limitations and appropriate use of these data.

The 2018-2019 School Neighborhood Poverty Estimates are based on school locations from the 2018-2019 Common Core of Data (CCD) school file and income data from families with children ages 5 to 17 in the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year collection. The ACS is a continuous household survey that collects social, demographic, economic, and housing information from the population in the United States each month. The Census Bureau calculates the income-to-poverty ratio (IPR) based on money income reported for families relative to the poverty thresholds, which are determined based on the family size and structure. Noncash benefits (such as food stamps and housing subsidies) are excluded, as are capital gains and losses. The IPR is the percentage of family income that is above or below the federal poverty level. The IPR indicator ranges from 0 to a top-coded value of 999. A family with income at the poverty threshold has an IPR value of 100. The estimates in this file reflect the IPR for the neighborhoods around schools which may be different from the neighborhood conditions of students enrolled in schools.All information contained in this file is in the public domain. Data users are advised to review NCES program documentation and feature class metadata to understand the limitations and appropriate use of these data.

This dataset contains information on antibody testing for COVID-19: the number of people who received a test, the number of people with positive results, the percentage of people tested who tested positive, and the rate of testing per 100,000 people, stratified by ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) neighborhood poverty group. These data can also be accessed here: https://github.com/nychealth/coronavirus-data/blob/master/totals/antibody-by-poverty.csv Exposure to COVID-19 can be detected by measuring antibodies to the disease in a person’s blood, which can indicate that a person may have had an immune response to the virus. Antibodies are proteins produced by the body’s immune system that can be found in the blood. People can test positive for antibodies after they have been exposed, sometimes when they no longer test positive for the virus itself. It is important to note that the science around COVID-19 antibody tests is evolving rapidly and there is still much uncertainty about what individual antibody test results mean for a single person and what population-level antibody test results mean for understanding the epidemiology of COVID-19 at a population level. These data only provide information on people tested. People receiving an antibody test do not reflect all people in New York City; therefore, these data may not reflect antibody prevalence among all New Yorkers. Increasing instances of screening programs further impact the generalizability of these data, as screening programs influence who and how many people are tested over time. Examples of screening programs in NYC include: employers screening their workers (e.g., hospitals), and long-term care facilities screening their residents. In addition, there may be potential biases toward people receiving an antibody test who have a positive result because people who were previously ill are preferentially seeking testing, in addition to the testing of persons with higher exposure (e.g., health care workers, first responders.) Neighborhood-level poverty groups were classified in a manner consistent with Health Department practices to describe and monitor disparities in health in NYC. Neighborhood poverty measures are defined as the percentage of people earning below the Federal Poverty Threshold (FPT) within a ZCTA. The standard cut-points for defining categories of neighborhood-level poverty in NYC are: • Low: <10% of residents in ZCTA living below the FPT • Medium: 10% to <20% • High: 20% to <30% • Very high: ≥30% residents living below the FPT The ZCTAs used for classification reflect the first non-missing address within NYC for each person reported with an antibody test result. Rates were calculated using interpolated intercensal population estimates updated in 2019. These rates differ from previously reported rates based on the 2000 Census or previous versions of population estimates. The Health Department produced these population estimates based on estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau and NYC Department of City Planning. Rates for poverty were calculated using direct standardization for age at diagnosis and weighting by the US 2000 standard population. Antibody tests are categorized based on the date of specimen collection and are aggregated by full weeks starting each Sunday and ending on Saturday. For example, a person whose blood was collected for antibody testing on Wednesday, May 6 would be categorized as tested during the week ending May 9. A person tested twice in one week would only be counted once in that week. This dataset includes testing data beginning April 5, 2020. Data are updated daily, and the dataset preserves historical records and source data changes, so each extract date reflects the current copy of the data as of that date. For example, an extract date of 11/04/2020 and extract date of 11/03/2020 will both contain all records as they were as of that extract date. Without filtering or grouping by extract date, an analysis will almost certain

The 2015-2016 School Neighborhood Poverty Estimates are based on school locations from the 2015-2016 Common Core of Data (CCD) school file and income data from families with children ages 5 to 17 in the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012-2016 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year collection. The ACS is a continuous household survey that collects social, demographic, economic, and housing information from the population in the United States each month. The Census Bureau calculates the income-to-poverty ratio (IPR) based on money income reported for families relative to the poverty thresholds, which are determined based on the family size and structure. Noncash benefits (such as food stamps and housing subsidies) are excluded, as are capital gains and losses. The IPR is the percentage of family income that is above or below the federal poverty level. The IPR indicator ranges from 0 to a top-coded value of 999. A family with income at the poverty threshold has an IPR value of 100. The estimates in this file reflect the IPR for the neighborhoods around schools which may be different from the neighborhood conditions of students enrolled in schools. All information contained in this file is in the public _domain. Data users are advised to review NCES program documentation and feature class metadata to understand the limitations and appropriate use of these data.

Analysis of ‘School Neighborhood Poverty Estimates, 2016-2017’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/b6e31e97-5692-4850-8360-b32bc28117ba on 12 February 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

The 2016-2017 School Neighborhood Poverty Estimates are based on school locations from the 2016-2017 Common Core of Data (CCD) school file and income data from families with children ages 5 to 18 in the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year collection. The ACS is a continuous household survey that collects social, demographic, economic, and housing information from the population in the United States each month. The Census Bureau calculates the income-to-poverty ratio (IPR) based on money income reported for families relative to the poverty thresholds, which are determined based on the family size and structure. Noncash benefits (such as food stamps and housing subsidies) are excluded, as are capital gains and losses. The IPR is the percentage of family income that is above or below the federal poverty level. The IPR indicator ranges from 0 to a top-coded value of 999. A family with income at the poverty threshold has an IPR value of 100. The estimates in this file reflect the IPR for the neighborhoods around schools which may be different from the neighborhood conditions of students enrolled in schools.

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

🇺🇸 미국 English The 2018-2019 School Neighborhood Poverty Estimates are based on school locations from the 2018-2019 Common Core of Data (CCD) school file and income data from families with children ages 5 to 17 in the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year collection. The ACS is a continuous household survey that collects social, demographic, economic, and housing information from the population in the United States each month. The Census Bureau calculates the income-to-poverty ratio (IPR) based on money income reported for families relative to the poverty thresholds, which are determined based on the family size and structure. Noncash benefits (such as food stamps and housing subsidies) are excluded, as are capital gains and losses. The IPR is the percentage of family income that is above or below the federal poverty level. The IPR indicator ranges from 0 to a top-coded value of 999. A family with income at the poverty threshold has an IPR value of 100. The estimates in this file reflect the IPR for the neighborhoods around schools which may be different from the neighborhood conditions of students enrolled in schools.All information contained in this file is in the public domain. Data users are advised to review NCES program documentation and feature class metadata to understand the limitations and appropriate use of these data.

Previous investigations of geographic concentration of urban poverty indicate the contribution of a variety of factors, such as economic restructuring and class-based segregation, racial segregation, demographic structure, and public policy. However, the models used by most past research do not consider the possibility that poverty concentration may take different forms in different locations across a city, and most studies have been conducted in Western settings. We investigated the spatial patterning of neighborhood poverty and its correlates in Hong Kong, which is amongst cities with the highest GDP in the region, using the city-wide ordinary least square (OLS) regression model and the local-specific geographically weighted regression (GWR) model. We found substantial geographic variations in small-area poverty rates and identified several poverty clusters in the territory. Factors found to contribute to urban poverty in Western cities, such as socioeconomic factors, ethnicity, and public housing, were also mostly associated with local poverty rates in Hong Kong. Our results also suggest some heterogeneity in the associations of poverty with specific correlates (e.g. access to hospitals) that would be masked in the city-wide OLS model. Policy aimed to alleviate poverty should consider both city-wide and local-specific factors.

The 2021-2022 School Neighborhood Poverty Estimates are based on school locations from the 2021-2022 Common Core of Data (CCD) school file and income data from families with children ages 5 to 17 in the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2018-2022 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year collection. The ACS is a continuous household survey that collects social, demographic, economic, and housing information from the population in the United States each month. The Census Bureau calculates the income-to-poverty ratio (IPR) based on money income reported for families relative to the poverty thresholds, which are determined based on the family size and structure. Noncash benefits (such as food stamps and housing subsidies) are excluded, as are capital gains and losses. The IPR is the percentage of family income that is above or below the federal poverty level. The IPR indicator ranges from 0 to a top-coded value of 999. A family with income at the poverty threshold has an IPR value of 100. The estimates in this file reflect the IPR for the neighborhoods around schools which may be different from the neighborhood conditions of students enrolled in schools.All information contained in this file is in the public domain. Data users are advised to review NCES program documentation and feature class metadata to understand the limitations and appropriate use of these data.

This dataset contains a selection of 27 indicators of public health significance by Chicago community area, with the most updated information available. The indicators are rates, percents, or other measures related to natality, mortality, infectious disease, lead poisoning, and economic status. See the full description at https://data.cityofchicago.org/api/assets/BB7058D2-E8A1-4E11-86CE-6CF1738F0A02.

The 2019-2020 School Neighborhood Poverty Estimates are based on school locations from the 2019-2020 Common Core of Data (CCD) school file and income data from families with children ages 5 to 17 in the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year collection. The ACS is a continuous household survey that collects social, demographic, economic, and housing information from the population in the United States each month. The Census Bureau calculates the income-to-poverty ratio (IPR) based on money income reported for families relative to the poverty thresholds, which are determined based on the family size and structure. Noncash benefits (such as food stamps and housing subsidies) are excluded, as are capital gains and losses. The IPR is the percentage of family income that is above or below the federal poverty level. The IPR indicator ranges from 0 to a top-coded value of 999. A family with income at the poverty threshold has an IPR value of 100. The estimates in this file reflect the IPR for the neighborhoods around schools which may be different from the neighborhood conditions of students enrolled in schools.All information contained in this file is in the public domain. Data users are advised to review NCES program documentation and feature class metadata to understand the limitations and appropriate use of these data.

Proportion of LSBs where potential correlates were significantly associated with neighborhood poverty rates in seven poverty clusters, Hong Kong, 2011.

From February 29 to June 1, 2020, there were 2,706 COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population in high poverty neighborhoods in New York City, compared to a rate of around 1,787 cases per 100,000 population in low poverty neighborhoods. This statistic illustrates the rate of COVID-19 cases in New York City from February 29 to June 1, 2020, by neighborhood poverty.

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).

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 layer was developed by the Research & Analytics Group of the Atlanta Regional Commission, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 5-year estimates for 2013-2017, to show population in poverty by Neighborhood Planning Unit in the Atlanta region.

The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent.

The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2013-2017). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available.

For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.

Naming conventions:

Prefixes:

None

Count

p

Percent

r

Rate

m

Median

a

Mean (average)

t

Aggregate (total)

ch

Change in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)

pch

Percent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)

chp

Change in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)

Suffixes:

None

Change over two periods

_e

Estimate from most recent ACS

_m

Margin of Error from most recent ACS

_00

Decennial 2000

Attributes:

SumLevel

Summary level of geographic unit (e.g., County, Tract, NSA, NPU, DSNI, SuperDistrict, etc)

GEOID

Census tract Federal Information Processing Series (FIPS) code

NAME

Name of geographic unit

Planning_Region

Planning region designation for ARC purposes

Acres

Total area within the tract (in acres)

SqMi

Total area within the tract (in square miles)

County

County identifier (combination of Federal Information Processing Series (FIPS) codes for state and county)

CountyName

County Name

PopPovDet_e

# Population for whom poverty status is determined, 2017

PopPovDet_m

# Population for whom poverty status is determined, 2017 (MOE)

PopPov_e

# Population below poverty, 2017

PopPov_m

# Population below poverty, 2017 (MOE)

pPopPov_e

% Population below poverty, 2017

pPopPov_m

% Population below poverty, 2017 (MOE)

PopPovU18Det_e

# Population under 18 years for whom poverty status is determined, 2017

PopPovU18Det_m

# Population under 18 years for whom poverty status is determined, 2017 (MOE)

PopPovU18_e

# Population under 18 years below poverty, 2017

PopPovU18_m

# Population under 18 years below poverty, 2017 (MOE)

pPopPovU18_e

% Population under 18 years below poverty, 2017

pPopPovU18_m

% Population under 18 years below poverty, 2017 (MOE)

PopPov18_64Det_e

# Population 18 to 64 years for whom poverty status is determined, 2017

PopPov18_64Det_m

# Population 18 to 64 years for whom poverty status is determined, 2017 (MOE)

PopPov18_64_e

# Population 18 to 64 years below poverty, 2017

PopPov18_64_m

# Population 18 to 64 years below poverty, 2017 (MOE)

pPopPov18_64_e

% Population 18 to 64 years below poverty, 2017

pPopPov18_64_m

% Population 18 to 64 years below poverty, 2017 (MOE)

PopPov65PDet_e

# Population 65 years and over for whom poverty status is determined, 2017

PopPov65PDet_m

# Population 65 years and over for whom poverty status is determined, 2017 (MOE)

PopPov65P_e

# Population 65 years and over below poverty, 2017

PopPov65P_m

# Population 65 years and over below poverty, 2017 (MOE)

pPopPov65P_e

% Population 65 years and over below poverty, 2017

pPopPov65P_m

% Population 65 years and over below poverty, 2017 (MOE)

FamWChildPovStat_e

# Families with related children, 2017

FamWChildPovStat_m

# Families with related children, 2017 (MOE)

FamWChild150Pov_e

# Families with related children below 150 percent of the poverty line, 2017

FamWChild150Pov_m

# Families with related children below 150 percent of the poverty line, 2017 (MOE)

pFamWChild150Pov_e

% Families with related children below 150 percent of the poverty line, 2017

pFamWChild150Pov_m

% Families with related children below 150 percent of the poverty line, 2017 (MOE)

ChildPovStatRatio_e

# Children for whom poverty status is determined, 2017

ChildPovStatRatio_m

# Children for whom poverty status is determined, 2017 (MOE)

ChildInFam200Pov_e

# Children in families below 200 percent of the poverty line, 2017

ChildInFam200Pov_m

# Children in families below 200 percent of the poverty line, 2017 (MOE)

pChildInFam200Pov_e

% Children in families below 200 percent of the poverty line, 2017

pChildInFam200Pov_m

% Children in families below 200 percent of the poverty line, 2017 (MOE)

last_edited_date

Last date the feature was edited by ARC

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional Commission

Date: 2013-2017

For additional information, please visit the Census ACS website.

Comparison of OLS and GWR for neighborhood poverty rate, Hong Kong, 2011.

Background: Receipt of nephrology care prior to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is a strong predictor of decreased mortality and morbidity, and neighborhood poverty may influence access to care. Our objective was to examine whether neighborhood poverty is associated with lack of pre-ESRD care at dialysis facilities. Methods: In a multi-level ecological study using geospatially linked 2007-2010 Dialysis Facility Report and 2006-2010 American Community Survey data, we examined whether high neighborhood poverty (≥20% of households in census tract living below poverty) was associated with dialysis facility-level lack of pre-ESRD care (percentage of patients with no nephrology care prior to dialysis start) in mixed-effects models, adjusting for facility and neighborhood confounders and allowing for neighborhood and regional random effects. Results: Among the 5,184 facilities examined, 1,778 (34.3%) were located in a high-poverty area. Lack of pre-ESRD care was similar in poverty areas (30.8%) and other neighborhoods (29.6%). With adjustment, the absolute increase in percentage of patients at a facility with no pre-ESRD care associated with facility location in a poverty area versus other neighborhood was only 0.08% (95% CI -1.32, 1.47; p = 0.9). Potential effect modification by race and income inequality was detected. Conclusion: Despite previously reported detrimental effects of neighborhood poverty on health, facility neighborhood poverty was not associated with receipt of pre-ESRD care, suggesting no need to target interventions to increase access to pre-ESRD care at facilities in poorer geographic areas.