In 2023, the around 11.1 percent of the population was living below the national poverty line in the United States. Poverty in the United StatesAs shown in the statistic above, the poverty rate among all people living in the United States has shifted within the last 15 years. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) defines poverty as follows: “Absolute poverty measures poverty in relation to the amount of money necessary to meet basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter. The concept of absolute poverty is not concerned with broader quality of life issues or with the overall level of inequality in society.” The poverty rate in the United States varies widely across different ethnic groups. American Indians and Alaska Natives are the ethnic group with the most people living in poverty in 2022, with about 25 percent of the population earning an income below the poverty line. In comparison to that, only 8.6 percent of the White (non-Hispanic) population and the Asian population were living below the poverty line in 2022. Children are one of the most poverty endangered population groups in the U.S. between 1990 and 2022. Child poverty peaked in 1993 with 22.7 percent of children living in poverty in that year in the United States. Between 2000 and 2010, the child poverty rate in the United States was increasing every year; however,this rate was down to 15 percent in 2022. The number of people living in poverty in the U.S. varies from state to state. Compared to California, where about 4.44 million people were living in poverty in 2022, the state of Minnesota had about 429,000 people living in poverty.

In 2023, about four percent of the people with a Bachelor's degree or higher were living below the poverty line in the United States. This is far below the poverty rate of those without a high school diploma, which was 25.1 percent in 2023.

Percentage of people in poverty by state using 3-year averages: 2009–11. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2011/tables.html.Geographic distribution of poverty in the United States.

This layer highlights the education status of women 25 or older, living below the poverty line. Compare this map to the Education Level of Men in Poverty for additional perspective, or use the Education Level of Women and Men in Poverty in the United States app to do a side by side comparison. The poverty line varies due to family size, state of residence, and other factors. The US Census normalizes the data by placing each respondent into an income category related to the poverty line. The Census then reports education levels for men and women above and below the poverty line. The US Census American Community Survey is an ongoing survey. These estimates were created from data collected from 2010 to 2014 and shown at the tract level. The tract borders are not shown to emphasize patterns.

This map compares the number of people living above the poverty line to the number of people living below. Why do this?There are people living below the poverty line everywhere. Nearly every area of the country has a balance of people living above the poverty line and people living below it. There is not an "ideal" balance, so this map makes good use of the national ratio of 6 persons living above the poverty line for every 1 person living below it. Please consider that there is constant movement of people above and below the poverty threshold, as they gain better employment or lose a job; as they encounter a new family situation, natural disaster, health issue, major accident or other crisis. There are areas that suffer chronic poverty year after year. This map does not indicate how long people in the area have been below the poverty line. "The poverty rate is one of several socioeconomic indicators used by policy makers to evaluate economic conditions. It measures the percentage of people whose income fell below the poverty threshold. Federal and state governments use such estimates to allocate funds to local communities. Local communities use these estimates to identify the number of individuals or families eligible for various programs." Source: U.S. Census BureauIn the U.S. overall, there are 6 people living above the poverty line for every 1 household living below. Green areas on the map have a higher than normal number of people living above compared to below poverty. Orange areas on the map have a higher than normal number of people living below the poverty line compared to those above in that same area.The map shows the ratio for counties and census tracts, using these layers, created directly from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS)For comparison, an older layer using 2013 ACS data is also provided.The layers are updated annually to contain the most currently released American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data, and contains estimates and margins of error. There are also additional calculated attributes related to this topic, which can be mapped or used within analysis. Poverty status is based on income in past 12 months of survey. Current Vintage: 2014-2018ACS Table(s): B17020Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey National Figures: data.census.govThe United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS):About the SurveyGeography & ACSTechnical DocumentationNews & UpdatesThis ready-to-use layer can be used within ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online, its configurable apps, dashboards, Story Maps, custom apps, and mobile apps. Data can also be exported for offline workflows. Please cite the Census and ACS when using this data.Data Note from the Census:Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.Data Processing Notes:This layer is updated automatically when the most current vintage of ACS data is released each year, usually in December. The layer always contains the latest available ACS 5-year estimates. It is updated annually within days of the Census Bureau's release schedule. Click here to learn more about ACS data releases.Boundaries come from the US Census TIGER geodatabases. Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates (annually), and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines clipped for cartographic purposes. For census tracts, the water cutouts are derived from a subset of the 2010 AWATER (Area Water) boundaries offered by TIGER. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters). The States layer contains 52 records - all US states, Washington D.C., and Puerto RicoCensus tracts with no population that occur in areas of water, such as oceans, are removed from this data service (Census Tracts beginning with 99).Percentages and derived counts, and associated margins of error, are calculated values (that can be identified by the "_calc_" stub in the field name), and abide by the specifications defined by the American Community Survey.Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells file available from the American Community Survey Summary File Documentation page.Negative values (e.g., -555555...) have been set to null. These negative values exist in the raw API data to indicate the following situations:The margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.Either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution, or in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.The estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.The data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small. NOTE: any calculated percentages or counts that contain estimates that have null margins of error yield null margins of error for the calculated fields.

The Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement (CPS-FSS) is the source of national and State-level statistics on food insecurity used in USDA's annual reports on household food security. The CPS is a monthly labor force survey of about 50,000 households conducted by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Once each year, after answering the labor force questions, the same households are asked a series of questions (the Food Security Supplement) about food security, food expenditures, and use of food and nutrition assistance programs. Food security data have been collected by the CPS-FSS each year since 1995. Four data sets that complement those available from the Census Bureau are available for download on the ERS website. These are available as ASCII uncompressed or zipped files. The purpose and appropriate use of these additional data files are described below: 1) CPS 1995 Revised Food Security Status data--This file provides household food security scores and food security status categories that are consistent with procedures and variable naming conventions introduced in 1996. This includes the "common screen" variables to facilitate comparisons of prevalence rates across years. This file must be matched to the 1995 CPS Food Security Supplement public-use data file. 2) CPS 1998 Children's and 30-day Food Security data--Subsequent to the release of the April 1999 CPS-FSS public-use data file, USDA developed two additional food security scales to describe aspects of food security conditions in interviewed households not captured by the 12-month household food security scale. This file provides three food security variables (categorical, raw score, and scale score) for each of these scales along with household identification variables to allow the user to match this supplementary data file to the CPS-FSS April 1998 data file. 3) CPS 1999 Children's and 30-day Food Security data--Subsequent to the release of the April 1999 CPS-FSS public-use data file, USDA developed two additional food security scales to describe aspects of food security conditions in interviewed households not captured by the 12-month household food security scale. This file provides three food security variables (categorical, raw score, and scale score) for each of these scales along with household identification variables to allow the user to match this supplementary data file to the CPS-FSS April 1999 data file. 4) CPS 2000 30-day Food Security data--Subsequent to the release of the September 2000 CPS-FSS public-use data file, USDA developed a revised 30-day CPS Food Security Scale. This file provides three food security variables (categorical, raw score, and scale score) for the 30-day scale along with household identification variables to allow the user to match this supplementary data file to the CPS-FSS September 2000 data file. Food security is measured at the household level in three categories: food secure, low food security and very low food security. Each category is measured by a total count and as a percent of the total population. Categories and measurements are broken down further based on the following demographic characteristics: household composition, race/ethnicity, metro/nonmetro area of residence, and geographic region. The food security scale includes questions about households and their ability to purchase enough food and balanced meals, questions about adult meals and their size, frequency skipped, weight lost, days gone without eating, questions about children meals, including diversity, balanced meals, size of meals, skipped meals and hunger. Questions are also asked about the use of public assistance and supplemental food assistance. The food security scale is 18 items that measure insecurity. A score of 0-2 means a house is food secure, from 3-7 indicates low food security, and 8-18 means very low food security. The scale and the data also report the frequency with which each item is experienced. Data are available as .dat files which may be processed in statistical software or through the United State Census Bureau's DataFerret http://dataferrett.census.gov/. Data from 2010 onwards is available below and online. Data from 1995-2009 must be accessed through DataFerrett. DataFerrett is a data analysis and extraction tool to customize federal, state, and local data to suit your requirements. Through DataFerrett, the user can develop an unlimited array of customized spreadsheets that are as versatile and complex as your usage demands then turn those spreadsheets into graphs and maps without any additional software. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: December 2014 Food Security CPS Supplement. File Name: dec14pub.zipResource Title: December 2013 Food Security CPS Supplement. File Name: dec13pub.zipResource Title: December 2012 Food Security CPS Supplement. File Name: dec12pub.zipResource Title: December 2011 Food Security CPS Supplement. File Name: dec11pub.zipResource Title: December 2010 Food Security CPS Supplement. File Name: dec10pub.zip

Graph and download economic data for Percent of Population Below the Poverty Level (5-year estimate) in Crawford County, KS (S1701ACS020037) from 2012 to 2023 about Crawford County, KS; KS; percent; poverty; 5-year; population; and USA.

Poverty threshold available at https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html

Additional information about how the Census Bureau measures poverty is available at https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html

How Poverty is Calculated in the ACS

Poverty statistics presented in ACS reports and tables adhere to the standards specified by the Office of Management and Budget in Statistical Policy Directive 14. The Census Bureau uses a set of dollar value thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. Further, poverty thresholds for people living alone or with nonrelatives (unrelated individuals) and two-person families vary by age (under 65 years or 65 years and older).

If a family’s total income is less than the dollar value of the appropriate threshold, then that family and every individual in it are considered to be in poverty. Similarly, if an unrelated individual’s total income is less than the appropriate threshold, then that individual is considered to be in poverty. The poverty thresholds do not vary geographically. They are updated annually to allow for changes in the cost of living (inflation factor) using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Poverty status was determined for all people except institutionalized people, people in military group quarters, people in college dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old. These groups were excluded from the numerator and denominator when calculating poverty rates.

Since the ACS is a continuous survey, people respond throughout the year. Because the income items specify a period covering the last 12 months, the appropriate poverty thresholds are determined by multiplying the base-year poverty thresholds (1982) by the monthly inflation factor based on the 12 monthly CPIs and the base-year CPI. (Source: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty-cal-in-acs.pdf)

Note: Updates to this data product are discontinued. Over 1 in 4 rural children are living in families that are poor, according to the official poverty measure, up from 1 in 5 in 1999, but this change was uneven across the rural landscape. Counties with high vulnerability to child poverty, those with both low young adult education levels and high proportions of children in single-parent families, were generally the most hard-hit by the recession of the past decade and experienced substantial increases in their already high child poverty rates. Along with the recession, an increase in rural children in single-parent households, continuing from the 1990s, was a major contributor to the rise in child poverty after 2000. Three factors that shape the geography of high and increasing rural child poverty are explored below: economic conditions, young adult education levels, and family structure. This collection of maps complements the July 2015 Amber Waves feature, Understanding the Geography of Growth in Rural Child Poverty.

In 2023, about 12.3 percent of Florida's population lived below the poverty line. This accounts for persons or families whose collective income in the preceding 12 months was below the national poverty level of the United States.

Goal 1End poverty in all its forms everywhereTarget 1.1: By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a dayIndicator 1.1.1: Proportion of the population living below the international poverty line by sex, age, employment status and geographic location (urban/rural)SI_POV_DAY1: Proportion of population below international poverty line (%)SI_POV_EMP1: Employed population below international poverty line, by sex and age (%)Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitionsIndicator 1.2.1: Proportion of population living below the national poverty line, by sex and ageSI_POV_NAHC: Proportion of population living below the national poverty line (%)Indicator 1.2.2: Proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitionsSD_MDP_MUHC: Proportion of population living in multidimensional poverty (%)SD_MDP_ANDI: Average proportion of deprivations for people multidimensionally poor (%)SD_MDP_MUHHC: Proportion of households living in multidimensional poverty (%)SD_MDP_CSMP: Proportion of children living in child-specific multidimensional poverty (%)Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerableIndicator 1.3.1: Proportion of population covered by social protection floors/systems, by sex, distinguishing children, unemployed persons, older persons, persons with disabilities, pregnant women, newborns, work-injury victims and the poor and the vulnerableSI_COV_MATNL: [ILO] Proportion of mothers with newborns receiving maternity cash benefit (%)SI_COV_POOR: [ILO] Proportion of poor population receiving social assistance cash benefit, by sex (%)SI_COV_SOCAST: [World Bank] Proportion of population covered by social assistance programs (%)SI_COV_SOCINS: [World Bank] Proportion of population covered by social insurance programs (%)SI_COV_CHLD: [ILO] Proportion of children/households receiving child/family cash benefit, by sex (%)SI_COV_UEMP: [ILO] Proportion of unemployed persons receiving unemployment cash benefit, by sex (%)SI_COV_VULN: [ILO] Proportion of vulnerable population receiving social assistance cash benefit, by sex (%)SI_COV_WKINJRY: [ILO] Proportion of employed population covered in the event of work injury, by sex (%)SI_COV_BENFTS: [ILO] Proportion of population covered by at least one social protection benefit, by sex (%)SI_COV_DISAB: [ILO] Proportion of population with severe disabilities receiving disability cash benefit, by sex (%)SI_COV_LMKT: [World Bank] Proportion of population covered by labour market programs (%)SI_COV_PENSN: [ILO] Proportion of population above statutory pensionable age receiving a pension, by sex (%)Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinanceIndicator 1.4.1: Proportion of population living in households with access to basic servicesSP_ACS_BSRVH2O: Proportion of population using basic drinking water services, by location (%)SP_ACS_BSRVSAN: Proportion of population using basic sanitation services, by location (%)Indicator 1.4.2: Proportion of total adult population with secure tenure rights to land, (a) with legally recognized documentation, and (b) who perceive their rights to land as secure, by sex and type of tenureSP_LGL_LNDDOC: Proportion of people with legally recognized documentation of their rights to land out of total adult population, by sex (%)SP_LGL_LNDSEC: Proportion of people who perceive their rights to land as secure out of total adult population, by sex (%)SP_LGL_LNDSTR: Proportion of people with secure tenure rights to land out of total adult population, by sex (%)Target 1.5: By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disastersIndicator 1.5.1: Number of deaths, missing persons and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 populationVC_DSR_MISS: Number of missing persons due to disaster (number)VC_DSR_AFFCT: Number of people affected by disaster (number)VC_DSR_MORT: Number of deaths due to disaster (number)VC_DSR_MTMP: Number of deaths and missing persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population (number)VC_DSR_MMHN: Number of deaths and missing persons attributed to disasters (number)VC_DSR_DAFF: Number of directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population (number)VC_DSR_IJILN: Number of injured or ill people attributed to disasters (number)VC_DSR_PDAN: Number of people whose damaged dwellings were attributed to disasters (number)VC_DSR_PDYN: Number of people whose destroyed dwellings were attributed to disasters (number)VC_DSR_PDLN: Number of people whose livelihoods were disrupted or destroyed, attributed to disasters (number)Indicator 1.5.2: Direct economic loss attributed to disasters in relation to global gross domestic product (GDP)VC_DSR_GDPLS: Direct economic loss attributed to disasters (current United States dollars)VC_DSR_LSGP: Direct economic loss attributed to disasters relative to GDP (%)VC_DSR_AGLH: Direct agriculture loss attributed to disasters (current United States dollars)VC_DSR_HOLH: Direct economic loss in the housing sector attributed to disasters (current United States dollars)VC_DSR_CILN: Direct economic loss resulting from damaged or destroyed critical infrastructure attributed to disasters (current United States dollars)VC_DSR_CHLN: Direct economic loss to cultural heritage damaged or destroyed attributed to disasters (millions of current United States dollars)VC_DSR_DDPA: Direct economic loss to other damaged or destroyed productive assets attributed to disasters (current United States dollars)Indicator 1.5.3: Number of countries that adopt and implement national disaster risk reduction strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030SG_DSR_LGRGSR: Score of adoption and implementation of national DRR strategies in line with the Sendai FrameworkSG_DSR_SFDRR: Number of countries that reported having a National DRR Strategy which is aligned to the Sendai FrameworkIndicator 1.5.4: Proportion of local governments that adopt and implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line with national disaster risk reduction strategiesSG_DSR_SILS: Proportion of local governments that adopt and implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line with national disaster risk reduction strategies (%)SG_DSR_SILN: Number of local governments that adopt and implement local DRR strategies in line with national strategies (number)SG_GOV_LOGV: Number of local governments (number)Target 1.a: Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through enhanced development cooperation, in order to provide adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensionsIndicator 1.a.1: Total official development assistance grants from all donors that focus on poverty reduction as a share of the recipient country’s gross national incomeDC_ODA_POVLG: Official development assistance grants for poverty reduction, by recipient countries (percentage of GNI)DC_ODA_POVDLG: Official development assistance grants for poverty reduction, by donor countries (percentage of GNI)DC_ODA_POVG: Official development assistance grants for poverty reduction (percentage of GNI)Indicator 1.a.2: Proportion of total government spending on essential services (education, health and social protection)SD_XPD_ESED: Proportion of total government spending on essential services, education (%)Target 1.b: Create sound policy frameworks at the national, regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender-sensitive development strategies, to support accelerated investment in poverty eradication actionsIndicator 1.b.1: Pro-poor public social spending

Graph and download economic data for Estimate of People of All Ages in Poverty in Milwaukee County, WI (PEAAWI55079A647NCEN) from 1989 to 2023 about Milwaukee County, WI; Milwaukee; WI; child; poverty; persons; and USA.

Graph and download economic data for Poverty Universe, All Ages for Lubbock County, TX (PUAATX48303A647NCEN) from 1998 to 2023 about Lubbock County, TX; Lubbock; poverty; TX; and USA.

Abstract (en): 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. All analysis of the data should be weighted using the total survey weight. The cell-level file includes a separate weight for each outcome and mediator measure that is the sum of weights for all observations in the cell with valid data for the measure (for example, wt_f_db_hba1c_diab_final is the weight for the glycated hemoglobin measure, mn_f_db_hba1c_diab_final). In the pseudo-individual file, mn_f_wt_totsvy is the average of the total survey weight variable for all observations in the cell. In the original individual-level file, the total survey weight (f_wt_totsvy) is calculated as the product of three component weights: (1) Randomization ratio weight -- At the start of the MTO program, random assignment (RA) ratios were set to produce equal numbers of leased-up families in the low-poverty and traditional voucher groups based on expected leased-up rates. The initial ratios were "8 to 3 to 5": eight low-poverty voucher group families to three traditional voucher families to five control families. During the demonstration program, these RA ratios were adjusted to accommodate higher than anticipated leased-up rates among low-poverty voucher group families. This weight ensures that the proportion of families in a given site is the same across all three treatment groups. This component weight value ranges from 0.59 to 2.09. (2) Survey sample selection weight -- For budgetary reasons, adults from only a random two-thirds of traditional voucher group households were selected for the long-term survey interview sample (while adults from all low-poverty voucher and control group families were selected), so this component weights up the selected traditional voucher group adults so that they are representative of all traditional voucher group adults. This weight component is equal to the inverse probability of selection into the subsample (~1.52). (3) Phase 2 subsample weight -- The long-term survey data collection was completed as a two-phase process. In the first phase, we sought to interview all selected respondents. Phase 2 of fielding was triggered when the response rate reached approximately 74 percent. In the second phase, we su...

This layer shows poverty status by age group. This is shown by tract, county, and state boundaries. This service is updated annually to contain the most currently released American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data, and contains estimates and margins of error. There are also additional calculated attributes related to this topic, which can be mapped or used within analysis. Poverty status is based on income in past 12 months of survey. This layer is symbolized to show the percentage of the population whose income falls below the Federal poverty line. To see the full list of attributes available in this service, go to the "Data" tab, and choose "Fields" at the top right. Current Vintage: 2015-2019ACS Table(s): B17020Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey Date of API call: December 10, 2020National Figures: data.census.govThe United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS):About the SurveyGeography & ACSTechnical DocumentationNews & UpdatesThis ready-to-use layer can be used within ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online, its configurable apps, dashboards, Story Maps, custom apps, and mobile apps. Data can also be exported for offline workflows. For more information about ACS layers, visit the FAQ. Please cite the Census and ACS when using this data.Data Note from the Census:Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.Data Processing Notes:This layer is updated automatically when the most current vintage of ACS data is released each year, usually in December. The layer always contains the latest available ACS 5-year estimates. It is updated annually within days of the Census Bureau's release schedule. Click here to learn more about ACS data releases.Boundaries come from the US Census TIGER geodatabases. Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates (annually), and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines clipped for cartographic purposes. For census tracts, the water cutouts are derived from a subset of the 2010 AWATER (Area Water) boundaries offered by TIGER. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters). The States layer contains 52 records - all US states, Washington D.C., and Puerto RicoCensus tracts with no population that occur in areas of water, such as oceans, are removed from this data service (Census Tracts beginning with 99).Percentages and derived counts, and associated margins of error, are calculated values (that can be identified by the "_calc_" stub in the field name), and abide by the specifications defined by the American Community Survey.Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells file available from the American Community Survey Summary File Documentation page.Negative values (e.g., -4444...) have been set to null, with the exception of -5555... which has been set to zero. These negative values exist in the raw API data to indicate the following situations:The margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.Either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution, or in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.The estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.The data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small.

The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in China in late 2019, and subsequently spread across the world during the first several months of 2020, has had a dramatic impact on all facets of life. At the same time, it has not manifested in the same way in every nation. Some countries experienced a large initial spike in cases and deaths, followed by a rapid decline, whereas others had relatively low rates of both outcomes throughout the first half of 2020. The United States experienced a unique pattern of the virus, with a large initial spike, followed by a moderate decline in cases, followed by second and then third spikes. In addition, research has shown that in the United States the severity of the pandemic has been associated with poverty and access to health care services. This study was designed to examine whether the course of the pandemic has been uniform across America, and if not how it differed, particularly with respect to poverty. Results of a random intercept multilevel mixture model revealed that the pandemic followed four distinct paths in the country. The least ethnically diverse (85.1% white population) and most rural (82.8% rural residents) counties had the lowest death rates (0.06/1000) and the weakest link between deaths due to COVID-19 and poverty (b = 0.03). In contrast, counties with the highest proportion of urban residents (100%), greatest ethnic diversity (48.2% nonwhite), and highest population density (751.4 people per square mile) had the highest COVID-19 death rates (0.33/1000), and strongest relationship between the COVID-19 death rate and poverty (b = 46.21). Given these findings, American policy makers need to consider developing responses to future pandemics that account for local characteristics. These responses must take special account of pandemic responses among people of color, who suffered the highest death rates in the nation.

Population by age groups, race and gender, and the poverty by race is attached to the split tract geography to create this split tract with population and poverty data. Split tract data is the product of 2020 census tracts split by 2023 incorporated city boundaries and unincorporated community/countywide statistical areas (CSA) boundaries as of July 1, 2023. The census tract boundaries have been altered and aligned where necessary with legal city boundaries and unincorporated areas, including shoreline/coastal areas. Census Tract:Every 10 years the Census Bureau counts the population of the United States as mandated by Constitution. The Census Bureau (https://www.census.gov/)released 2020 geographic boundaries data including census tracts for the analysis and mapping of demographic information across the United States. City Boundary:City Boundary data is the base map information for the County of Los Angeles. These City Boundaries are based on the Los Angeles County Seamless Cadastral Landbase. The Landbase is jointly maintained by the Los Angeles County Assessor and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DPW). This layer represents current city boundaries within Los Angeles County. The DPW provides the most current shapefiles representing city boundaries and city annexations. True, legal boundaries are only determined on the ground by surveyors licensed in the State of California.Countywide Statistical Areas (CSA): The countywide Statistical Area (CSA) was defined to provide a common geographic boundary for reporting departmental statistics for unincorporated areas and incorporated Los Angeles city to the Board of Supervisors. The CSA boundary and CSA names are established by the CIO and the LA County Enterprise GIS group worked with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Unincorporated Area and Field Deputies that reflect as best as possible the general name preferences of residents and historical names of areas. This data is primarily focused on broad statistics and reporting, not mapping of communities. This data is not designed to perfectly represent communities, nor jurisdictional boundaries such as Angeles National Forest. CSA represent board approved geographies comprised of Census block groups split by cities.Data Fields:CT20: 2020 Census tractFIP22: 2023 City FIP CodeCITY: City name for incorporated cities and “Unincorporated” for unincorporated areas (as of July 1, 2023) CSA: Countywide Statistical Area (CSA) - Unincorporated area community names and LA City neighborhood names.CT20FIP23CSA: 2020 census tract with 2023 city FIPs for incorporated cities and unincorporated areas and LA neighborhoods. SPA22: 2022 Service Planning Area (SPA) number.SPA_NAME: Service Planning Area name.HD22: 2022 Health District (HD) number: HD_NAME: Health District name.POP23_AGE_0_4: 2023 population 0 to 4 years oldPOP23_AGE_5_9: 2023 population 5 to 9 years old POP23_AGE_10_14: 2023 population 10 to 14 years old POP23_AGE_15_17: 2022 population 15 to 17 years old POP23_AGE_18_19: 2023 population 18 to 19 years old POP23_AGE_20_44: 2023 population 20 to 24 years old POP23_AGE_25_29: 2023 population 25 to 29 years old POP23_AGE_30_34: 2023 population 30 to 34 years old POP23_AGE_35_44: 2023 population 35 to 44 years old POP23_AGE_45_54: 2023 population 45 to 54 years old POP23_AGE_55_64: 2023 population 55 to 64 years old POP23_AGE_65_74: 2023 population 65 to 74 years old POP23_AGE_75_84: 2023 population 75 to 84 years old POP23_AGE_85_100: 2023 population 85 years and older POP23_WHITE: 2023 Non-Hispanic White POP23_BLACK: 2023 Non-Hispanic African AmericanPOP23_AIAN: 2023 Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska NativePOP23_ASIAN: 2023 Non-Hispanic Asian POP23_HNPI: 2023 Non-Hispanic Hawaiian Native or Pacific IslanderPOP23_HISPANIC: 2023 HispanicPOP23_MALE: 2023 Male POP23_FEMALE: 2023 Female POV23_WHITE: 2023 Non-Hispanic White below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV23_BLACK: 2023 Non-Hispanic African American below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV23_AIAN: 2023 Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV23_ASIAN: 2023 Non-Hispanic Asian below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV23_HNPI: 2023 Non-Hispanic Hawaiian Native or Pacific Islander below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV23_HISPANIC: 2023 Hispanic below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV23_TOTAL: 2023 Total population below 100% Federal Poverty Level POP23_TOTAL: 2023 Total PopulationAREA_SQMil: Area in square mile.POP23_DENSITY: 2023 Population per square mile.POV23_PERCENT: 2023 Poverty rate/percentage.How this data created?Population by age groups, ethnic groups and gender, and the poverty by ethnic groups is attributed to the split tract geography to create this data. Split tract polygon data is created by intersecting 2020 census tract polygons, LA Country City Boundary polygons and Countywide Statistical Areas (CSA) polygon data. The resulting polygon boundary aligned and matched with the legal city boundary whenever possible. Notes:1. Population and poverty data estimated as of July 1, 2023. 2. 2010 Census tract and 2020 census tracts are not the same. Similarly, city and community boundaries are as of July 1, 2023.

Analyses S1. Supporting statistical analyses containing tests of (1) potential non-linear relationships between variables of interest, and (2) relationships between average wealth, race, and gender and economic inequality voting behavior. Table S1. Summary of legislative bills such that a yes vote on the bill indicates either support for or reduction of economic inequality in the US. (DOCX)

This dataset was developed by the Research & Analytics Group at the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the Infrastructure Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics.Naming conventions:Prefixes: None Countp Percentr Ratem Mediana 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)s Significance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% CI, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed Suffixes: _e19 Estimate from 2014-19 ACS_m19 Margin of Error from 2014-19 ACS_00_v19 Decennial 2000, re-estimated to 2019 geography_00_19 Change, 2000-19_e10_v19 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_m10_v19 Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_e10_19 Change, 2010-19The 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 2015-2019). 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.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional CommissionDate: 2015-2019Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the manifest: https://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/3d489c725bb24f52a987b302147c46ee/data

Overall, both the number of people living in poverty and the number of people living in extreme poverty in Latin America increased between 2015 and 2022, reaching 202 million and 81 million people, respectively. Since then, the number of people living in poverty has declined. In 2024, an estimated 170 million people were projected to be living in poverty in the region. . Moreover, indigenous peoples in Latin America continue to experience extremely high poverty rates.